RE: Build Roll - mirror (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

thewood1 -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 3:22:40 PM)

Again, it's a design decision you made...that's your prerogative. But not being expressly clear on the decision until asked, wasted a huge amount of my gaming time. I come back any wargame that has a dependency on the AI like Command not having the default action to be to attack an enemy unit in range is somewhat mind boggling. Otherwise, you have AI ships just sitting there getting pounded without a response.

I assume to workaround this I need to create a giant mission box that covers the entire battle area.



navwarcol -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 3:31:50 PM)

I do agree with D that it must be carefully implemented, especially because in Harpoon, one of the first things needed used to be to quickly assign your vls ships for example, lest they immediately fire off TLAMs at everything in range. On the other side I get what you are saying also thewood1. I think he said they are working on it though. I do think (??) that currently you can assign a mission inside of ref.pts. and assign those to follow your ship so rather than create a global mission, you can just create an ASuW mission with RPs, assign the RP to follow your ship, and it should work around?



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 4:40:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol
I do agree with D that it must be carefully implemented, especially because in Harpoon, one of the first things needed used to be to quickly assign your vls ships for example, lest they immediately fire off TLAMs at everything in range.


DING!



ExMachina -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 4:44:15 PM)

quote:

"Why are my ships throwing LRASMs at every little Boghammer out there? I just want them to search for subs!"


That'd be me [:D] Nothing ends a scenario faster for me than to have a well-intentioned AI suddenly loose all of my assets against targets of its choosing. [X(]

And while I've not played around with scenario design much, it seems like CMANO already has sufficient options for conditional "weapons free" units/groups via the missions editor.



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 5:04:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I played several naval warfare games and it has always seemed to me a "weapons tight" vs "weapons free" is a pretty simple solution.


Not if one wants to avoid manual player intervention, which is the whole point of this request.

Unless your definition of "weapons tight" is "engage only your mission targets", which is exactly the current mission-AI behavior. (Most players interpret "weapons tight" as "only fire at incoming missiles, otherwise clamp down".)



thewood1 -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 5:28:07 PM)

But you are trading one evil for another. If I had to choose, I'd rather they fire at something as default than sit and let a gunboat chug up along side them and pummel them. Right now, the AI has no way to respond to an enemy human that does something unexpected outside its mission parameters. Missions are great, but they are not the end all be all in compensating for getting the AI to react properly to an immediate threat. Right now, unless the scenario designer has some way to predict where a human will take his assets, the AI can easily be left unable to respond.

I spent an entire weekend trying to figure out why a modern Aegis cruiser was letting a Chinese destroyer cruise up to it and destroy it. The cruiser was on AA duty and watched as the Chinese destroyer killed its escorts and then came along side and fired point blank at it. It wasn't until this discussion a week or so came about that I realized the issue. I can manually target stuff. The AI can't and can be very hobbled by this issue.



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 5:36:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I spent an entire weekend trying to figure out why a modern Aegis cruiser was letting a Chinese destroyer cruise up to it and destroy it. The cruiser was on AA duty and watched as the Chinese destroyer killed its escorts and then came along side and fired point blank at it. It wasn't until this discussion a week or so came about that I realized the issue. I can manually target stuff. The AI can't and can be very hobbled by this issue.


Specifically for AAW tasking on ships, up to now you could assign them to an ASW/ASuW/SeaControl mission, or leave them mission-less, and they would still engage air & sub hostiles defensively (they just wouldn't actively manouver to intercept them). Try it out.

I say "up to now" because on the new build, as part of adding this as a doctrine option, we are enabling this behavior only when the option is explicitly set by the player / scen author.



mikmykWS -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 6:20:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I spent an entire weekend trying to figure out why a modern Aegis cruiser was letting a Chinese destroyer cruise up to it and destroy it. The cruiser was on AA duty and watched as the Chinese destroyer killed its escorts and then came along side and fired point blank at it. It wasn't until this discussion a week or so came about that I realized the issue. I can manually target stuff. The AI can't and can be very hobbled by this issue.


Specifically for AAW tasking on ships, up to now you could assign them to an ASW/ASuW/SeaControl mission, or leave them mission-less, and they would still engage air & sub hostiles defensively (they just wouldn't actively manouver to intercept them). Try it out.

I say "up to now" because on the new build, as part of adding this as a doctrine option, we are enabling this behavior only when the option is explicitly set by the player / scen author.


Jeez D sounds like somebody just got exactly what he wanted...Again![:)]




thewood1 -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 6:46:19 PM)

That is a big step in the right direction. But I still don't like having to explicitly put a unit on a mission to counter an attack. It should be inherent in its doctrine. It leaves the AI-side with limited capabilities without the scenario designer having to think of every possible event that can come up.



mikmykWS -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 7:59:19 PM)

We're getting the mission because I want it. [:)]

I think the ROE D said he'd implement fits with what you wanted. You can set it by side so probably covers it.





Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 9:09:02 PM)

Build 468 (beta)
---------------------

Fixed:
----------
- 0006036: [462] ASW Mission Logic: Surface Units on ASW missions will not engage hostile ships that fire on them
- 0005111: Ships on AAW patrol should still engage surface contacts with guns

* New doctrine option: Engage targets of opportunity (default is NO). When enabled, a unit will target and engage any contact for which it has suitable weaponry (at range up to 1.5 of max suitable weapon range), regardless of its mission tasking.



snowburn -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/27/2013 9:14:18 PM)

Great job!!!! CMAMO is getting better everyday [:)]

Each new build makes b460 look outdated, any chance to allow us to try the latest builds?



Agathosdaimon -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 12:51:52 AM)

I can imagine that having ai auto respond to threats outside its mission would be helpful on massive scenarios with lots happening, though i just like the options i have set with messages to popup and notify me explicitly of new contacts for me to then decide on, like in harpoon



JCR -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 1:27:41 PM)

Wow, this a great step, especially for CWDB scenarios, where gun engagements occur a lot more often than with DB3000



SSN754planker -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 1:57:38 PM)

For the love of turkey, PLEASE have a new build available for download when i get home tonight from my thanksgiving feast! All this new stuff in these builds, makes B460 look old.



JCR -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 2:06:21 PM)

I second that. Please think of those who do not belong to the Beta Testing Master Race (tm) :D



snowburn -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 2:30:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JCR

I second that. Please think of those who do not belong to the Beta Testing Master Race (tm) :D


+1
we feel like dirty peasants-



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 4:41:36 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBg74WYa-0



Moltke71 -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/28/2013 5:29:20 PM)

LOL!



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (11/29/2013 7:56:15 AM)

Build 469 (PUBLIC)
------------------------

Rolls up beta releases 461-468, plus:

* New event trigger: Unit Detected. Fires when a unit (flexibly filtered from side-wide down to specific unit) is detected by the specified side.

* New and improved sound effects for various gun calibers (incl. lasers), aircraft & helicopter take-offs, new contacts, alert (weapon contacts) etc.

* OODA values are now affected by proficiency levels. Novice crews take twice the nominal OODA value to execute their targeting process while ace crews beat even the nominal best-case value
(all other levels in-between).



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/1/2013 10:07:12 PM)

Build 470 (beta)
-----------------------

Fixed:
-------
- 0005763: Sead Patrol mission should have RTB When Winchester set by default
- 0006112: Hold Position for ground units
- 0006132: Cannot select new home base for grouped aircraft, only one-by-one
- 0004198: Ability to manually change aircraft callsigns
- 0004760: No way to delete a specific aircraft from a base / ship
- 0006035: Mobile units should have a 'static' option so they don't move around
- 0006034: Doctrine option: Use SAMs in anti-ship mode
- 0000759: On/off switch for SAM's with Surface Target Engagement Capability
- 0005651: Adding/Removing weapon record from loadout causes a crash
- 0006159: Sidebar slightly trimmed from B461 onwards

* "Hold Position" command added to right-click menu for mobile ground units.

* You can now select a new home base for multiple-selected aircraft.

* You can now edit aircraft names and delete specific aircraft directly through the Air-Ops window.

* New doctrine option: Use SAMs in anti-surface mode (or not).

* New imports by Rudd: DPRK complete EW + AD installations 2003-2013.



SSN754planker -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/2/2013 4:32:02 AM)

More polishing to an already great sim! I cant wait to see what CMANO looks like 1 year from now.



El Savior -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/2/2013 9:39:28 AM)

Yes!

- 0006132: Cannot select new home base for grouped aircraft, only one-by-one
- 0004198: Ability to manually change aircraft callsigns
- 0004760: No way to delete a specific aircraft from a base / ship
- 0006035: Mobile units should have a 'static' option so they don't move around

This will make all easier. Thank you!



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/2/2013 4:01:32 PM)

Build 471 (beta)
---------------------

Fixed:
-------
- 0005758: Players would like to hide reference Points
- 0006090: Tu-16s taking up runway access points
- 0005973: AS-2 drone shoots down AIM-54
- 0006190: Accessing the Side ROE and doing nothing changes the unit opportunity fire ROE to yes
- 0004668: SAM Site isn't grabbing weapons from attached ammo dump
- 0004920: Can't transfer ammo from land mag to SAM unit
- 0004050: Issue with Mission Activate Event - We disabled the ability ot set a mission time in game
- 0004955: Players would like to be able to set mission activation times in game mode.
- 0006024: Scenario user was building crashes at load

* New game option: Reference point visibility. Three settings are available: Normal (as currently), Small (half-size and grayed out), and Don't Show. This significantly declutters the map in cases of dense ref-point concentrations.

* New imports by Rudd: ROK complete EW + AD installations 2003-2013.

* You can now set the activation time for a mission through the mission editor.



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/3/2013 5:49:05 PM)

Build 472 (beta)
-----------------------


Fixed:
---------
- 0006207: Mission Editior Dialog: Set Activation Time procedure set the mission inactive for the player
- 0006206: [471] Mission Editor Time Activation Text Color

* The map-cursor databox (a.k.a. Black Box of Data) can now be configured to appear beside the cursor (as currently), appear on the bottom of the map, or not appear at all. This is set by Game -> Game Options -> "Map Cursor Databox", and is a global (not scenario/side-level), persisting setting.

* Delay-timed missions are displayed in the mission editor with a "[D]" prefix.

* Refined acoustic reverberation modifiers for sonars. Now the sonar's tech level (more modern sets are affected less) and operating frequency (lower-frequency sets suffer the most) also play a part in determining degradation due to reverberation from shallow water or under-ice conditions.

* Strategic submarines now actively evade not only weapon contacts but also potential sub & surface threats in proximity.




SSN754planker -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/3/2013 9:22:31 PM)

* The map-cursor databox (a.k.a. Black Box of Data) can now be configured to appear beside the cursor (as currently), appear on the bottom of the map, or not appear at all. This is set by Game -> Game Options -> "Map Cursor Databox", and is a global (not scenario/side-level), persisting setting.

Wow! Was not expecting this! 1.02 is looking to be amazing!



Primarchx -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/10/2013 2:01:43 PM)

What's a Delayed Timed Mission? I've linked mission activation to events, including time events, in the past. How do D-T Missions differ?



Dimitris -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/10/2013 5:49:06 PM)

With delayed-time missions you no longer need to use the EE to time-trigger a mission activation, so you can also set delayed missions as a player now.



Primarchx -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/10/2013 6:25:20 PM)

I remember that request now. Thanks, D!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

With delayed-time missions you no longer need to use the EE to time-trigger a mission activation, so you can also set delayed missions as a player now.




Primarchx -> RE: Build Roll - mirror (12/10/2013 11:03:27 PM)

The map-cursor databox (a.k.a. Black Box of Data) can now be configured to appear beside the cursor (as currently), appear on the bottom of the map

What's the constantly changing large integer that appears in the window-bottom black box?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375