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


Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 8:58:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kansleri
I'm running a scenario where I'm conducting air operations from an island to a group of island requiring aircraft to refuel above the sea midway there (Caribbean Crisis Showdown). I'd really like to see aircraft fuel status in group view.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 8:59:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6
In game options, I'd like to have separate message settings for new air, surface, facility and subsurface contacts. In a lot of scenarios I play, air contacts are pretty constant, but I've run into situations where a goblin detection will get lost in the messages. It'd be nice to be allowed to ignore new air contacts and get pop up alerts for new goblin contacts, for example.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:00:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marder2075

Let the unit xp influence the TOT.
rookie = 10-50% accurate (randomized)
ace = 80-100% accurate with the planned TOT.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:02:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: magi

I believe at some point… There should be two general gameplay features or categories...
A simplified mode… That would be useful for new players and people who just want to jump in and have some fun…
And a full realism mode… For people who appreciate the game as a simulator and educator of modern theater operations and warfare… Like myself…

In simplefied mode there could be checkboxes of features that you could activate or deactivate......

In realism mode there could be features that you could deactivate…
Some of the major ones that I can think of… Are like aircraft agility as affected by load out....
Submarine operation modeling and behavior… This constant contact and ability to manipulate and direct submarines well subsurfaced is so unreal…however I do understand its usefulness and pleasure in gameplay for many people… So if it was optional… I believe it would satisfy everyone.......

Features could also be turned on and off to improve computer performance for some users...... I am aware that there's a lot of feature choices that already exist in the game as it is… I am just thinking of it being more expanded and more incompasing......

I am just expressing some general notions here… However I suspect command will move in this direction at sometime in the future AnyWho…


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:03:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Midcon113

I already voted for the TOT planner, but as I was trying to create a patrol zone around a ship, I came up with another idea - right now in the UI you can Ctrl-Right Click and hit Define Area, which gives you the ability to create a rectangular area. I wanted to create a circular area around a specific point - it'd be cool to have an option to create something like a circular area. To keep it reasonable on the number of reference points, maybe make it an octagon.

The way I see it working is that when the user clicks that option, an anchor point would be created, and the user can drag out to essentially draw a "radius" similar to how the Distance and Bearing tool works now.

Apologies if this is already in the UI and I just haven't seen it yet. There are a ton of elements in the UI and I haven't used them all yet. :)

Thanks!

Mark


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:06:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deepdive
I wish sonobuys and ref points would turn inactiv (unclickable) when turning visibility off.

Bjørn


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:07:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swedelicious
I'd like to be able to set units to attack other units by crashing into them, IE a terrorist suicide attack. I know it's a delicate matter and I do not mean to offend anyone, but it's a real life threat that could happen, just like shooting down an airliner by mistake, or the hypothetical nuking of Ukraine.

Sorry if already mentioned (or already in the game - I could not find it), the search engine hates me.


This has been added in v1.08.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:07:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

quote:

ORIGINAL: deepdive

I wish sonobuys and ref points would turn inactiv (unclickable) when turning visibility off.

Bjørn


The ability to deactivate sonobuoys would be nice, too, especially in you have processing/channel restrictions.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:08:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kgambit

How about the ability to jettison ordnance?


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:09:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Swedelicious

Again, sorry if already mentioned or already in the game:

I'd like to be able to "lock" onto a friendly unit when I plot a course. IE, if the plotted course end on a friendly unit, the unit will set course towards that friendly unit even if it's moving. If I do so now, the unit will go to the place where the other unit was when I plotted the course and then stop.

(hope any of this makes sense, english is my second language)


It would be nice if this worked for contacts as well; there are situations where I'd like to order an intercept but don't want an aircraft to waste fuel at full power.


I think this is feasible already, by setting an interceot with WRA-hold and overriding the throttle setting. Please correct me if this is not the case.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:10:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pjcoia

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the amazing achievement which Command is, as well as the tremendous continued support given to it by the development team. I get tremendous joy playing what-ifs scenarios as well as the amazing scenarios both within the game and contributed from the community.

My suggestion, and apologies if it has been mentioned but search didn't show that it had, is around the interface for reference points. On a large scenario, the number of reference points can quickly become chaotic and confusing. It seems to me that the two main uses for reference points are 1) to define an area and 2) to define a route. Regular use has taught me that reusing reference points across two or more paths or areas is bad practice so I always have distinct sets of ref points.

So the idea is this: the user should manage Areas or Routes primarily (adding, editing or deleting). They could be attached to missions where appropriate and modified within that context (Support mission -> add/edit route). In other words, instead of adding reference points individually, selecting them (and hoping not to have selected a stray one), and then creating a mission, you create the mission and then define an area/route which may or may not only exist within the context of the mission.

Some of problems it would solve are: 1) accidentally deleting a reference point that you didn't know you had selected, 2) having stray reference points lying around from defunct missions, 3) moving reference points accidentally as the majority of points would now be related to defined areas/routes and no longer need to be editable outside of the missions they're related to.

Progression of the game has many of the elements needed for this: missions highlight the relevant areas/routes on the map, and no-nav and exclusion zones appear in the same way. I see this suggestion as the logical conclusion of this which is the removal of the need for raw reference point editing.

Paul


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:11:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sluggy



Hi - was reading this thread - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3820530

and wondered about unit Avatars next to the unit - only if the group / unit is selected - provides quick visual feedback about task force strength etc,

Would look something like this ...





[image]local://upfiles/46355/A4573943908C40639245A48E9A04B383.jpg[/image]


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:12:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marder2075

I would like to have a customizeable soundslot per unit- type.

It would be nice to hear a sound when selecting a unit.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:13:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

[:'(][:D][8D]
I always hate to ask, but how about a LUA command that allows us to run an event...
Every 8 hours to change weather.
Every 4 hours launch a recon unit... you get the idea...
Thank you!


I think this is already doable, through the scenario editor....?




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:14:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

With SSKs it would be nice to know the amount of time at current rate to charge batteries to full.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:15:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

Would it be possible to add an information lag to reconnaissance missions, depending upon the aircraft?

E.g.:
If I run a SR-71 on a recon mission, I shouldn't see the results until the SR-71 lands and the film / radar track is processed (hours later).

Or, if I am using a Tu-95 ocean recon, I see the ship location in real-time, matching the Bear's CONOPs.

I think this could add some useful restrictions to operational / strategic reconnaissance, though the concept may not be feasible until network warfare is implemented.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:31:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Here are few things I'm still interested in, post V1.08 (which is awesome!). Just thought I'd jot them down. Some may already exist, and if so, sorry if I've missed them.

1) More Lua functions. In particular...
... Change a Unit's Side
... Join a unit to a group
... Compel an aircraft or boat to RTB
... Compel a ship to UNREP (at a specific AOR?)
... Strike a unit with a specific warhead immediately

2) Doctrine: The ability to ignore Bingo fuel. Off by default, of course. Long range missions with supporting tankers can be tricky to pull off without this.

3) LOS Tool: Some method of determining whether a line-of-sight exists between two 3-D points on the map. Default would be ground level to ground level, but perhaps a CTRL/Mousewheel action could increment/decrement altitude for the beginning and ending point? If a drawn line connected the origin and destination clicks, that would great, and even better if it broke at the first point LOS was broken.

4) Hot Key: to change sonobuoy visibility. Going to the Game Options folder each time I want to view or mute sonobuoys is a pain.

5) Attack a Reference Point. Be able to specify an RP's location as the target of an unguided attack. Perhaps create a custom kind of RP called a Targeting Point?


All added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:32:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rongor

I am suggesting to give the "Unit weapons" section we have with our own side's units also to non-friendlies unit info panel. As the FoW forbids to mention accurate numbers, I would like to see weapon mounts and capacity listed there, so nothing else than looking it up in the DB viewer. This would be very convenient to assess the opponents potential much quicker than opening the DB viewer link each time and for target we come across. I would consider this to be helpful with seagoing vessels, not necessarily with aircraft.

We elaborated this suggestion here


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:35:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexGGGG

I would like reverse targeting vectors. When the Targeting Vectors are set to Selected Unit, it would be great to click the enemy unit (not my unit), and see what my units target this enemy unit.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:36:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RoccoNZ
helicopter in flight refuelling from ships:

1) Allowing helicopters to refuel without landing and generating a refuel/rearm cycle
2) Allowing the use of fast surface ships like LCS) as lillypads



Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:36:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

I'd like to have the ability to apply the 1/3 rule to Ferry Flight missions.

Thanks!


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:38:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

An extra filter on the database viewer for the type of a/c, ship, etc. Example, pulling up list of all a/c, filter on 'Electronic warfare' would only show those a/c of that type.


Added.




Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/6/2015 9:39:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I also had an idea regarding to message log too. Separate these messages into catalogs based on their colors, and player can close the specific catalog(s) when necessary:

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/CMANO_message_slots_1_zpstqswctry.png[/image]

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/CMANO_message_slots_2_zps8nyzltng.png[/image]

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/CMANO_message_slots_3_zps696ujics.png[/image]


Added.




Mgellis -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 12:56:00 AM)

I'd like to suggest something. One of the complaints I hear on the Armchair General forums (assuming these people are not simply Herman's sock puppets) is that it is "unrealistic" to limit aircraft speeds to 950 knots, etc.

I propose a new realism setting toggle...you can either use "realistic aircraft values" or "theoretical aircraft values" .

This way, if people really feel strongly that they should be able to fly an F-15 into combat at Mach 2, they can do it. I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement...add a new field in the database for "theoretical maximum speed" and then add a value for each aircraft?

Anyway, thanks for considering this idea.





snowburn -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 1:33:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I'd like to suggest something. One of the complaints I hear on the Armchair General forums (assuming these people are not simply Herman's sock puppets) is that it is "unrealistic" to limit aircraft speeds to 950 knots, etc.

I propose a new realism setting toggle...you can either use "realistic aircraft values" or "theoretical aircraft values" .

This way, if people really feel strongly that they should be able to fly an F-15 into combat at Mach 2, they can do it. I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement...add a new field in the database for "theoretical maximum speed" and then add a value for each aircraft?

Anyway, thanks for considering this idea.


i think its a great idea, but it will fit better under ROE/EMCON settings, something like:
Allow max theoretical speeds: OFF[default]/ON

if this is set to ON, after landing the aircraft will automaticaly switch to MAINTENANCE loadout and can't fly again.




thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 2:29:46 AM)

I, for one, wouldn't spend lot of time worrying about the Armchair General forums. They are not very active, they are populated by a lot of people who have no concept of reality from playing board games, and they tend to be a heavy majority of people kicked out of other forums. If I could vote on it, it would 20-21 on the list for resources.

I saw one guy from there complaining about something and his point of reference was that he had been playing wargames for 20 years.




Dysta -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 5:32:47 AM)

A sort of "difficulty slider" like this about the data value in both optimistic, realistic and sub-standard:

Inferior (15-30% lower than original DB value)
Sub-standard (0-15% lower than original DB value)
Nominal (same as DB value)
Theroical (0-15% higher than original DB value)
Superior (15-30% higher than original DB value)

It can be adjusted and applied to a specific side(s), or override an entire scenario with adjustable value setting. I also like to suggest the "reliability slider" that works likely the same, but only for the reliability like random accident from launching or MIA (malfunctioning/missing in action) instead of the weapon performance.




thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 1:01:07 PM)

That sounds easy.




FoxZz -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 1:54:54 PM)

Hello,

As a very low priority addition to gameplay, I would propose to add a veterancy system for the duration of a scenario that could be extended to a campaign.

The simplest way to implement would be to increase the veterancy of a unit by one step when this unit kills an ennemy unit. Thus this may be too simple with units reaching the ace level quiet quickly. So maybe several kills and/or combat action (evading missile, time spent engaging ennemies, etc, all not ebing equals in terms of veterancy).

A nice thing to add would also be killing list for each unit implied in the scenario, it could be displayed in its shortcut, it would be in the spirit of the kill marking drawed on aircrafts and ships :

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/240_b.jpg
http://www.hazegray.org/features/bb55/bb55_53.jpg
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-mideast/israel/af/pics/101-2.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0H0v1Yz74x62_ERjs_ONWPDtlA9T90iPDdLnV5uH_pFxZYCZxyQ




Mgellis -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/7/2015 2:39:00 PM)

I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement, but I had an idea for a new posture.

[Dark Blue/Friendly But No Communications] This side is not automatically in communication with you, and does not automatically know where you are, but considers you friendly and would view someone attacking you as hostile. You cannot see them automatically and you do not know if they are friendly until they are close enough to be identified. Neither of you can share information--they cannot see what you see, the way an allied unit can. You could in theory fire on them by accident. They could in theory fire on you by accident. Once they are identified, of course, you can no longer fire on each other by accident.

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

This might be one way to model submarines, covert operations units, etc.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for considering it.








Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625