RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (Full Version)

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

[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: -- )

Message

CV60 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/17/2014 10:36:05 AM)
In addition to better weather modeling, could the game include a small sunrise/sunset/nautical twilight calculator? This would be very helpful, especially for the cold war scenarios. I know such calculators are on-line, but having one in the game would help for strike planning.

AlexGGGG -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/26/2014 8:46:16 PM)
I'd like to see adjustment of engagement ranges. Let's consider CAP fighters engaging incoming aircraft. Once enemy closes in, at some point fighters will fire AAMs, normally two per target. This happens at some "default" range. Now missiles PH drops with range, sometimes radically. If the incoming aircraft are fighters, that's OK. If it is the bombers that are incoming, which cannot shoot back, I would like to engage at much shorter ranges, so as not to loose PH. So I would like an option like "adjust engagement range" and then, like "Default", "3/4 default" and "1/2 default". Harpoon CE I recall had this for SAMs. This might be a doctrine setting, so it can be applied at all levels from side-wide down to individual units. Effectively, I'm looking for a setting to balance between maintaining maximum standoff and achieving maximum kills per weapon fired.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/26/2014 11:19:10 PM)
Removed "More variable cloud cover" as this has been available for a while now.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/26/2014 11:20:21 PM)
Removed "Ordnance transfer to bases" as this has been available since at least v1.05.

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/22/2014 6:06:48 PM)
I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine).

Grondoval -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/22/2014 6:22:12 PM)
I would like to make a suggestion: How about the option to enable a message when a vehicle reaches a specific waypoint (in the waypoint menu you could select IF you want to be notified and in the game menu you could select HOW you want to be notified - per message log or time-stop-pop-up). You could plot some complicated ingress route for a strike and enable the pop up message for the last waypoint before target and dont miss out details of the strike. Something that says (Unit XY or Group XY has reached Waypoint XY)

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/22/2014 7:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellfish6 I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine). Isn't this possible with a patrol mission with weapons-tight?

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/22/2014 7:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: hellfish6 I'd like to ask for a "recon" mission, which is essentially a patrol, but prevents your recon units from engaging enemy forces. I ask because I have an allied unit providing recon support for my side, but I had to put it on an ASW patrol mission inside Germany because the recon planes were making gun runs on targets and going Winchester when all I wanted them to do was provide target detection/assessments for my strike force. It's a crude workaround, and doesn't allow those recon units to adequately investigate the contacts they discover (unless, of course, I plop a submarine in the Rhine). Isn't this possible with a patrol mission with weapons-tight? Can that be done on an AI-controlled side with most of the aircraft still at base?

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 2:34:36 AM)
I would think a support mission on a single loop of an area would work. Keep opportunity fire off for the mission. At worst, use Lua to keep weapons tight, but I don't think you have to. Lua gives you a lot of flexibility to manage those missions for the AI, but even without it I would think it would work.

Tomcat84 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 6:13:59 AM)
I agree. A support mission or maybe even a patrol mission with Weapons Hold/Tight (e.g. engage opportunity targets NO, engage unknowns, NO, Unit hold fire (no ai attacks) selected (possibly Lua enable this one) and it should work?

deepdive -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 10:32:11 AM)
I would like that an unknown contact would freeze in its track (stop jumping around) loose its pointer and fade slowly away, like change to an grey or darker colour, and remove uncertain rings, at least to be selectable, also for those displayed seconds since last fixed position, to be selectable for uncluttering of the map. Bj�rn

AlexGGGG -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 6:15:40 PM)
For AAW Patrols, I would like to propose two things 1. Dampen dropping a target. If a contact jumps on the boundary of CAP prosecution area, CAP aircraft will dance around repeatedly running towards contact on afterburners, then returning back to the contact area. This wastes a lot of fuel. Especially noticeable in a jammed environment when CAP cannot get precise fix on a contact, and the contact jumps in-out of the prosecution area. So I propose the change be made if the contact was auto-targeted during CAP mission, this target cannot be dropped earlier than one minute after it was last targeted. 2. Make an transit option for AAW. Currently we do not have that; I mean it would be nice to have the "strict" transit throttle override option for AAW patrols. This way, if the target is already inside the prosecution area, the fighters will still transit towards the patrol area in cruise, rather than wasting all the fuel in afterburners immediately after takeoff.

pepolk0001 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 7:02:54 PM)
Ability to change color of grouped reference points and shaded patrol/prosecution areas. Ability to show/hide specific missions via the map display menu. Artist's conception included. [image]local://upfiles/50680/1633ACE0B1144EB3A48981F717B3DF31.jpg[/image]

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 10:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tomcat84 I agree. A support mission or maybe even a patrol mission with Weapons Hold/Tight (e.g. engage opportunity targets NO, engage unknowns, NO, Unit hold fire (no ai attacks) selected (possibly Lua enable this one) and it should work? Support missions are great for route reconnaissance, but not so great for area recon. And while I like the idea of LUAs, I'd still like to have the ability to create a recon mission (where the only fire allowed is in self defense - I'd like my recon aircraft to be able to use their AIM-9s or AA-8s if they need to) without having to learn to program a script to do it.

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 11:06:03 PM)
I completely disagree. I use the support method all the time for area recon. Please explain in detail why it doesn't work. If you want to be a good scenario designer, I can't understand why you wouldn't use Lua. Its a tool that most other games only dream of. I am no programmer, but see immediately that it allows any scenario designer to do a bunch of things without asking for developer resources for niche features.

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/24/2014 11:40:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 I completely disagree. I use the support method all the time for area recon. Please explain in detail why it doesn't work. Again, this is for an AI side mission. Not a player-controlled mission. I'll give it a shot, but off the top of my head I don't see it giving me the kind of randomness/flexibility I want to have. I know where the enemy units are or will pop up - so I as a designer would give that mission to the AI knowing that I was either intentionally aiding or harming the player. At least with an AI-controlled area patrol, the result of the recon is more unpredictable AND the aircraft/platform can loiter and investigate contacts (so it spots something at a distance, can close with an investigate it until it's satisfied it can ID the contact). A support mission is effectively on rails, though admittedly I've only used them for AEW, EW and tanker missions so far. And again, I'd like my aircraft/platform to autonomously perform self-defense. Something I can't recall a support mission allowing for, something a hold-fire command wouldn't allow, and something that might actually be helpful in other mission types as well (so an A-10 can do more than just evade a MiG's missiles without player intervention). quote: If you want to be a good scenario designer, I can't understand why you wouldn't use Lua. Its a tool that most other games only dream of. I am no programmer, but see immediately that it allows any scenario designer to do a bunch of things without asking for developer resources for niche features. First and foremost, I make missions I want to play. I like the missions I've made without LUA so far. If I can suggest a feature that I think could be useful, I'm going to suggest it and let the devs decide if it's worth the effort. I'll learn LUA eventually, but if it can do any of the things I've just mentioned (autonomous investigation without engagement first and foremost, autonomous self defense secondary), I'll go ahead and bite my tongue now.

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/25/2014 1:16:49 AM)
Have you even tried the support mission approach. btw, I am talking about AI use. I use loadouts combined with the support mission. I use these so the AI can ID and spot for missile launches all the time. I just did one where sides were unfriendly until ships were spotted entering a zone. Then they went hostile and SSMs were launched. It worked pretty much as designed on the AI side.

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/25/2014 1:43:39 AM)
Please read what I wrote.

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/25/2014 2:04:02 AM)
Regardless...I don't see how they don't work the way you want. I don't see the need for a mission that performs exactly they way you can do it in the game.

snowburn -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 1:30:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pepolk0001 Ability to change color of grouped reference points and shaded patrol/prosecution areas. Ability to show/hide specific missions via the map display menu. Artist's conception included. [image]local://upfiles/50680/1633ACE0B1144EB3A48981F717B3DF31.jpg[/image] yes, please!

Helderik -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 2:01:32 PM)
Merry X-mas to all! First of all, thank you for a great overhaul of my favorite game! You guys did a fantastic job. I am a relative noob to this game, but have been strugling with a few things that I want to mention here. Maybe it can help improve this already fantastic game further. I apologize if my points have been mentioned before by others... My humble suggestions (in no particular order) for further improvement... 1). Could you please update the override emcon settings question with a check box or something like that to prevent me from clicking this away all the time? It is not a big deal, but speeds up the game. Especially if you switch on radar and OECM, you have to click yes several times... 2). Could you grey-out options that are not available in the 'multiple sensors' window if they are not applicable? Again, only a small thing but this clarifies the game for my and perhaps other less experienced players... 3). I am struggling with the OECM ability of units. New planes like the F35 (are thought to) have really powerful OECM abilities. However, when playing with the F35, I cannot see if the OECM does anything (when not digging into all calculations). Would it be possible to specifically target an object with OECM, just like you target with a normal weapon? A plane could position itself then automatically to align its jammers with a target without having to do this by yourself. Also, besides targeting vectors, illuminating vectors, etc, it would be really nice to see ECM vectors in the same way if your ships / air craft are using ECM. This would make their use easier and traceable... This is the one thing in modern scenario's where I struggle to optimize my attacks... Further, is it possible to damage radars using ECM? If Im correct, modern ECM can damage and even destroy equipment... 4). I typically draw a no-fly zone around important enemy SAM sites if they are known to me to prevent casualties. This typically is a circle with 6-8 ref points. Besides a single ref point and a rectangle, a circle (center and radius) tool would be great... Again, no must have, but definitely nice to have... Thank you for this great game, I learned so much about modern air/naval operations because of this game! Erik

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 2:49:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Demuder Make it so we can order weapons with active datalinks to self destruct. Added.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 2:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slicendice I'd also love to see the final agility factor affected by the amount of time the aircraft spent flying defensive maneuver. But for that to work there has to be a new way to determine target detection first， ideally using probability of detection approach. So there is actually a chance for target to not evade/make belated defensive maneuver. This has been added on the vote list as "Refine air combat evasion limitations (reduced agility)"

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 2:57:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Windom Earle - 1/3rd rule option for strike missions - amphibious/air landings [&o] Added both.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 2:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp5500 It would be nice to have a Condition setting in the event editor for: Score Below x, Score above x, and score within range x-a. Thanks Please post this on the ScenEdit poll.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 3:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kimaera026 2 - Flight operations. Maybe it's being expanded already. That said, I'd like it more customisable, from what I'm seeing in 536. At the moment it's all automatic. Planes are assigned to either parking, hangar, pads, or flight deck, according to some mechanic i'm yet to understand. It'd be better if, in auto, it would assign the ones with a ready loadout to open parking and flight deck, rathen than hangar, which would suit reserve, maintanance, and generally inactive or readying aircraft. And i'd like the option to direct them myself. Say i'm readying a flight of two aicraft for a strike. I want them on the flight deck when their loadout is ready, so I can launch them straight away. Maybe it's already working like this, or maybe not. Or maybe the difference from hangar and flight deck is so small still that it doesnt make a difference. I don't know for sure. IIRC this has been added in v1.06.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/26/2014 3:02:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KriB I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage. The new flights should arrive, and then the RTB can happen. It is a another factor in the fuel calculations, but I hope it is doable. This is particularly important for AEW missions, as I want complete coverage, all the time. Added.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/27/2014 6:12:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jufinace20 2) Some level of control over unit doctrines in order to enhance the fidelity of the behavior in some situations. For example Libians in the 80's firing at Egyptians, their stock of expensive weapons (e.g. missiles) was limited, and their salvoes would be most probably limited in number (keeping the remaining munitions until the first rounds came by the target). Right now the AI is always in WWIII mode, very effective, but usually wasting about half the salvo on a burning hulk. This is coming in v1.07.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/27/2014 6:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djoos5 If I can add to this request post... here is my suggestion for a future event/trigger/action: Action: Activate NO NAV-ZONE It would allow us to create a NO NAV ZONE that only activates on the condition set by a trigger. I thought of this as I design my new scenario - there are three bridges crossing the Oda River and if the Player can destroy them, or one of them, it would be the trigger that would activate the NO NAV ZONE at that bridge. By doing this, the tank units trying to get to the bridge to cross would be stuck on the opposite side. Not sure if that is an easy action to add, but if it is, it would allow for some cool results of bombing runs. [image]local://upfiles/46623/AE18A4ABFDB049B7B52A7DFDB04B3289.jpg[/image] If easy can you please post this on the ScenEdit poll? Thanks!

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/27/2014 6:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vark How about some improvements to torpedoes? 3 items in particular I can think of: 1- Wires that can be cut/damaged for a variety of reasons (i.e. turning 180 would certainly cut your wires). 2- Once the wires are cut, a torp is hot, i.e. if it sees your sub it will track and kill you if you're not careful. Added. quote: 3- Search patterns for torps. Clockwise, counterclockwise, snake, etc... Already have those IIRC.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

1.09375