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

ColonelMolerat -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/10/2016 8:04:45 PM)
On the Mission Editor, the 'Maximum' and 'Minimum' strike radius fields only work for planes on strike missions. Could they be made to apply to boats and subs on strike missions too, please? At the moment, they'll chase anything on the map and there's no simple way to limit the range. (This could be useful for boats stationed at docks - they could move out to strike anything too close, then return) Also, on a similar note, perhaps could the Transit/Patrol/Attack speeds in the Patrol Mission Editor for boats and subs have a 'Stop' setting. This way, they could be ordered to stay still when patrolling (not engaging a target), or not to move when attacking. Obviously, not necessary for the transit setting! Or for planes!

vettim89 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/22/2016 7:40:30 PM)
This is just a silly request but would be SOOOOOOOO nice for us scenario designers When using the "set orientation" command either have a text box where you can write in the value you are after or have "+/-" buttons. Nothing more frustrating that trying to get the right value and the slider keeps bouncing back and forth above and below where you are aiming

Vici Supreme -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/23/2016 12:58:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 This is just a silly request but would be SOOOOOOOO nice for us scenario designers When using the "set orientation" command either have a text box where you can write in the value you are after or have "+/-" buttons. Nothing more frustrating that trying to get the right value and the slider keeps bouncing back and forth above and below where you are aiming You know you can use the arrow keys to fine-adjust the direction, right?

cf_dallas -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/23/2016 1:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0 quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 This is just a silly request but would be SOOOOOOOO nice for us scenario designers When using the "set orientation" command either have a text box where you can write in the value you are after or have "+/-" buttons. Nothing more frustrating that trying to get the right value and the slider keeps bouncing back and forth above and below where you are aiming You know you can use the arrow keys to fine-adjust the direction, right? Ugh. Just... ugh. At myself. For never trying that. ((facepalm))

vettim89 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/23/2016 5:42:25 PM)
+1 - DOH!

Excroat3 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/4/2016 8:59:30 PM)
For ships, when their side doctrine is "Never use UNREP" when you attempt to UNREP, a message appears that no suitable UNREP location is available. I was wondering if this message could be changed to "This unit has 'never use UNREP' enabled under side doctrine". Very small change, but it would help ease confusion.

p1t1o -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/8/2016 12:56:43 AM)
Hi all, I would like to formally suggest a toggle option for the audio warning siren that plays whenever a hostile weapon is detected. Though often an essential warning, there are plenty of circumstances where it is not particularly necessary, and in high-pressure moments it can be quite a racket. A toggle could be anything from a checkbox in the options menu to a small dedicated toggle button on the main screen toolbar. On a secondary note, there are also ways that the audio warning could have its utility multiplied - have seperate tones for SAM, AAM, AshM, "unknown" etc. Thanks!

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/8/2016 1:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Excroat3 For ships, when their side doctrine is "Never use UNREP" when you attempt to UNREP, a message appears that no suitable UNREP location is available. I was wondering if this message could be changed to "This unit has 'never use UNREP' enabled under side doctrine". Very small change, but it would help ease confusion. quote: Excroat3 For ships, when their side doctrine is "Never use UNREP" when you attempt to UNREP, a message appears that no suitable UNREP location is available. I was wondering if this message could be changed to "This unit has 'never use UNREP' enabled under side doctrine". Very small change, but it would help ease confusion. Just added this to our list. Pretty reasonable request. M

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/8/2016 1:52:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat On the Mission Editor, the 'Maximum' and 'Minimum' strike radius fields only work for planes on strike missions. Could they be made to apply to boats and subs on strike missions too, please? At the moment, they'll chase anything on the map and there's no simple way to limit the range. (This could be useful for boats stationed at docks - they could move out to strike anything too close, then return) Also, on a similar note, perhaps could the Transit/Patrol/Attack speeds in the Patrol Mission Editor for boats and subs have a 'Stop' setting. This way, they could be ordered to stay still when patrolling (not engaging a target), or not to move when attacking. Obviously, not necessary for the transit setting! Or for planes! Added these as normal requests on our list. Thanks! Mike

Wasicun -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/9/2016 11:22:16 PM)
how can i vote? I choose real time multiplayer btw. Greetings

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/11/2016 4:24:17 PM)
Would it ever be beneficial for the user or designer to set a limit to the "scrollable" lat-long and altitude allowed during game play? I often find myself over scrolling in either x, y, and or z directions. So when playing over the Black Sea I end up out over the Mediterranean or farther away. Even in orbit. I know I can be careful and avoid this. I use the mouse wheel a lot. Would limiting the playing area additionally help software performance? Yes, nick picking ... but just curious. <ported over from the main forum, please comment here>

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/11/2016 5:04:07 PM)
"nick picking" is nitpicking...just nitpicking on ya.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/11/2016 5:46:00 PM)
that's the Greek side of the family coming through.

ETF -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/12/2016 11:15:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wasicun how can i vote? I choose real time multiplayer btw. Greetings OH Ya! That would the day. Hoping for a nice add-on for that! It would increase the fan base immensely IMHO.

Rory Noonan -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/13/2016 2:16:46 PM)
I would like to be able to set special message pop-ups for new contacts / contact changes by contact type; in large scenarios it's common for heaps of bogeys to be present, so setting pop-ups for new contacts stops the game every few seconds. Being able to set the pop-up for new skunks or goblins would allow the player to run in time compression while stopping immediately if a goblin or skunk is detected (and not every couple of seconds when a bogey appears) As a follow-on, being able to customise the sounds for different contact types would be great, but this is a distant second to the above.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/16/2016 3:52:17 PM)
Are the following statements true? Weapon system reliability and accuracy are separate characteristics which are "baked" into the database and can not be altered by the designer. Proficiency is set by the designer globally for a side. It is related to training/non-technical/non-database factors. Additionally, Is there any talk about being able to assign differing proficiency levels to individual systems per side in the editor? For example 2/6 F14s are aces, the other 4 regular. Or being able to set "maintenance = reliability" levels the same way?

Gunner98 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/16/2016 4:01:56 PM)
I am not certain on your first point so won't speculate. On the second point however, you can already do that: In the clip you see a Sqn of Harriers most are Veteran, 5 are Aces and one (a new replacement) is Regular. You set the proficiency by unit or group with the drop down in the lower right of the box. B [image]local://upfiles/16451/67A77289A86F4578AA4B86750DC0E37D.jpg[/image] EDIT: Re-read you're post. Yes the designer sets the proficiency for the entire side based on how he feels the factors he believes are important, training, moral, rest, experience etc. Then adjusts the individual units base on the same thing but more fine tuned.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/16/2016 4:31:04 PM)
Thanks, did not see that option on the lower right. Gee, more factors to test and play with ...[:D] Without checking a bunch of scenarios, do designers typically highlight in the briefings which units are less than or greater than "regular" or do they have the player check those assignments in the OOB view like you show above? I would place them in the briefing but I could see testing the players attention to detail too.

tipsypo -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/23/2016 6:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kevinkin Would it ever be beneficial for the user or designer to set a limit to the "scrollable" lat-long and altitude allowed during game play? I often find myself over scrolling in either x, y, and or z directions. So when playing over the Black Sea I end up out over the Mediterranean or farther away. Even in orbit. I know I can be careful and avoid this. I use the mouse wheel a lot. Would limiting the playing area additionally help software performance? Yes, nick picking ... but just curious. <ported over from the main forum, please comment here> Think I would quite like that. Would use with some custom layers to restrict the viewable area to those layers. For example would be cool to use an nautical chart (am sure I saw an post on here where someone did use one) or some other height map as an map instead. So I do not see the hard edge where the nautical chart stops and the black void, relief, or blue marble kicks in. Though I presume you would also require something to prevent units wandering out the viewable area in order to make that work? Well could use the ORBAT to select them and then change their course back I guess. Unrelated though I can think another View Setting similar to the "Borders + Coastlines" that would be cool, another setting that shows you the both the Land Borders and Territorial Waters akin to what you can see on the OpenStreetMap.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 3:44:57 AM)
Custom scenario folders? Just to organize the growing number of scenarios. I hope I missed this feature since I need get things under control[&o]

Rory Noonan -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 6:46:49 AM)
You can already do this. Open up windows explorer, find the CMANO directory, then open up \Scenarios. Inside you can creat new folders and move things about to your heart's content. I do this to keep things in order, as well as keep WIP scenarios and older builds separate from the rest.

eleos -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 12:59:56 PM)
Is there any chance to change "Range and Profile" when used in strike missions? e.g. When F-16Blk30 use AGM-65G have a Hi-Lo-Hi profile. It would be great if we could change this to Lo-Lo-Lo or Med-Lo-Med etc and at the same time be advised about the new mission range.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 3:20:37 PM)
But apache5 I tried that and Command does not find the folders from within the game. It will only load scenario files from set folders. Follow?

thewood1 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 3:52:40 PM)
I create bunches of new folders and they all show up as folders in Command.

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 4:13:20 PM)
OK, looks like trying to make sub folders in the pre-set folders e.g. LIVE, Northern Inferno, Standalone Scenarios and Tutorials will not work but custom folders outside those folders will. You can move scenario into and out of those pre-set folders but can't make folders within them that Command recognizes. Thanks.

stilesw -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 6:33:41 PM)
Strange. I just did a test - created a sub-folder in \scenarios\LIVE\ called "TestFolder". I then copied a scenario into the new "TestFolder". Started CMANO and found the .scen file in the "\scerarios\LIVE\TestFolder" with no problem. I'm running CMANO v1.11, SR5, Build 847.1. Don't know why it does not seem to work for you. -Wayne Stiles

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 9:21:42 PM)
I would like to see.... That aircraft under " maintenance ".. Are by "default" below deck if space is available.....

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 9:25:08 PM)
I would like to see.... That assets on a a mission.. once the mission termites.. can be pre allocated to a following mission..... In other words.... You can set up a sequence of missions.....

kevinkins -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/1/2016 9:31:17 PM)
Thanks Wayne. I have what I need. Even though I know it ain't so ... I will still blame it on the Anniversary edition screwing with my system. When is doubt blame da man.

Cik -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/5/2016 6:29:34 AM)
please add push points if my strike package goes to the target one more time while my SEAD is refuelling i'm going to scream if you're given more than a token force of fighters to play with and they have to go more than a few miles to target this inevitably becomes a big problem. i should not have to watch the whole breadth of my forces to constantly redirect idiots deciding that they're going to push into the SA-10 without SEAD or push over the border without their escort (who knows what they're doing) there needs to be an option to require different elements to group up at RPs or areas before they go to the target. even if this results in the whole package bingoing out it's at least preferable to losing sometimes thousands of points in scenarios because my low-level attackers suicide into the NEZ of some grumble. also SEAD needs to be way more conservative with their ARMs, assigning a flight of wild weasels to SEAD escort and then having them dump every single HARM into the first search radar they get into range of is ridiculous, it's even worse if it's a shilka which can't even threaten their package of standoff bombers. shamal especially is almost unmanageable because of these issues.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

2.6875