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

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/28/2018 4:55:58 PM)
How about a standard cargo loadout for LSD, LHD, LHA etc, with various missions in mind. ARG, MEU, QRF etc. Thank You.

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/28/2018 10:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra How about a standard cargo loadout for LSD, LHD, LHA etc, with various missions in mind. ARG, MEU, QRF etc. Thank You. What do you mean by this? Like a pre-packaged number of units that can be loaded on, instead of having to research marine OOBs, and then add each piece of equipment/personnel one by one?

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/29/2018 10:26:16 AM)
It's great to be able to save a group with a particular cargo load from scenario to scenario. But I think the realism of having to pull into port and "reload" for a particular mission, choose the wrong load, could be trouble. Along the same lines as weapons loadouts for aircraft. Looks like thewood1 has a new moniker ... TheTwig1 or TheStick1 You fool noone and you need to get a life stickboy

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/29/2018 11:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra It's great to be able to save a group with a particular cargo load from scenario to scenario. But I think the realism of having to pull into port and "reload" for a particular mission, choose the wrong load, could be trouble. Along the same lines as weapons loadouts for aircraft. Looks like thewood1 has a new moniker ... TheTwig1 or TheStick1 You fool noone and you need to get a life stickboy I see regarding the cargo loadouts.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/30/2018 4:49:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra It's great to be able to save a group with a particular cargo load from scenario to scenario. But I think the realism of having to pull into port and "reload" for a particular mission, choose the wrong load, could be trouble. Along the same lines as weapons loadouts for aircraft. Looks like thewood1 has a new moniker ... TheTwig1 or TheStick1 You fool noone and you need to get a life stickboy Please don't.

guanotwozero -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/30/2018 12:09:28 PM)
Request: Type-agnostic 1/3 rule option. I'd like to assign mixed aircraft to a mission, and have the 1/3 rule apply to the whole instead of separately to each type. This would include maintaining aircraft on station.

Peter66 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/31/2018 2:50:17 PM)
I'd like to see the new Chance of Appearance option to be saved within .inst files much the same as EMCON states are saved. It would be useful to be able to import random chance group builds in a few seconds.

Gneckes -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/31/2018 9:06:01 PM)
Can we have a kind of Line-of-Sight checker? Telling the radar horizon of a SAM or such from the Relief Layer alone is pretty tough.

stilesw -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (3/31/2018 10:08:32 PM)
Here are two tools that have been provided by other forum members: http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=10&h0=4&unit=imperial

Rain08 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/1/2018 2:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stilesw Here are two tools that have been provided by other forum members: http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=10&h0=4&unit=imperial I think he's also talking about LoS on mountainous terrain. It's hard to know how much the radar could see if it's set on an uneven terrain. Plus it would be also helpful as an attacker if you plan on doing NoE flights or cruise missile strikes as you can direct them to the blind spots easier.

Gneckes -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/1/2018 11:52:09 AM)
Yes indeed, I was talking about something to take terrain into consideration.

Stacker1010 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/3/2018 3:22:17 PM)
Reference Point Editor - One thing I would really like to help manage complex scenarios is a central place to manipulate reference points. When running a scenario I sometimes find it useful to decorate it with reference points with meaningful names (such as 'Primary Target #1' etc..). However, it's a right pain when I have to rename one because you have to de-select everything, rename it, then remember which ones to re-select etc... This is especially tedious, if like me, you like to have a nice clean view with only the useful RP's selected and/or when the scenario maker has also added a gazillion RP's for their own use. So my idea would be as follows: A simple list window which enumerates all current editable RP's which would allow rename/select/deselect. Nothing fancy, just a list control of all RP's.

guanotwozero -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/7/2018 1:06:09 PM)
Feature Request: Display empty capacity in aircraft fuel tank. This would make it easier to work out how many planes can be refuelled by a tanker with known Bingo-free fuel on board.

Puciek -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/11/2018 2:51:56 PM)
A small feature request, but much help for newer players: when configuring WRA, double-clicking the weapon should open the database entry for that weapon. Right now you have to open the database separately, and then retype the name to find it.

riflebrigade -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/13/2018 11:39:22 PM)
What are the procedures to vote in the poll?

ExNusquam -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/15/2018 11:16:07 PM)
This is a big ask: GNSS Jamming This would require two key elements 1) A method to create GNSS Jamming and 2) An CEP effect on GNSS guided weapons. I think there are two ways to implement GNSS jamming: 1) A unit flag that indicates that GNSS is Jammed, or 2) GNSS Jammer ground units. 1) Would be controllable via the Editor or via lua. With area triggers it would be fairly easy to model GNSS Jamming. 2) Would need several "Generic" jamming vehicles (and people will undoubtedly request specific units) with a variety of effect ranges. Using units has the added benefit of allowing easy modeling of HOJ options that are included on SDB-II. CEP Effects should impact all weapons that have the property "INS w/GPS Navigation" and lack a terminal seeker. For weapons that have lost GNSS signal for the entire TOF, CEP should expand by 500% (based on stated JDAM performance), scaling linearly if signal is not lost for the entire TOF. I understand if this a feature that the devs want to keep reserved for the Professional edition, but even the lua implementation would add a realistic complicating factor for modern operations.

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/15/2018 11:44:18 PM)
A dedicated system for nuclear weapons targeting would be good. So would can do things like selecting yield, selecting targets for MIRVs, etc. I know this has been suggested before but I wanted to add the yield selection part.

Primarchx -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/18/2018 1:33:52 PM)
It would be nice to have an appended document in html format that has all scenario messages placed in it in order of display. This allows you to go back and read things like orders and other scen editor's messages without worrying about losing them due to mis-clicks. Just open the .html file for <scen_name}MSG.html and you see everything that's been been sent, including time stamp, for the current game.

Primarchx -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/18/2018 1:48:38 PM)
The ability to manipulate mounts' initial engagement time and/or ongoing OODA time independent of their training level. This is to reflect a unit's level of readiness, effective command, etc.

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/22/2018 11:35:07 PM)
I was wondering: In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity. We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large. If this has already been asked for, please forgive me... Thank you!

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/23/2018 8:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tjhkkr I was wondering: In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity. We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large. If this has already been asked for, please forgive me... Thank you! The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all...

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/26/2018 3:00:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin quote: ORIGINAL: tjhkkr I was wondering: In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity. We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large. If this has already been asked for, please forgive me... Thank you! The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all... These folks do a great deal of work; I was trying to be keep the request small and manageable for the developers. [:)] [8D]

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/26/2018 6:35:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tjhkkr quote: ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin quote: ORIGINAL: tjhkkr I was wondering: In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity. We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large. If this has already been asked for, please forgive me... Thank you! The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all... These folks do a great deal of work; I was trying to be keep the request small and manageable for the developers. [:)] [8D] Adding cargo capability for cargo ships doesn't have to come all at once. They could start with the dry bulk carriers, and then every now and then add it for other ships.

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/27/2018 10:33:40 PM)
I've mentioned this one before, and it has now listed as a choice (thank you), but I would again like to mention having the ability to tow other ships. Quite often, I encounter a situation where an otherwise-good ship becomes disabled in the water. I do realize that the time restraints on the scenario would not usually be conducive to tow another ship, but there are times when it could happen. For example, if a Task Force was damaged in battle and found it necessary to withdraw from the area (rather than advance), I'm certain that they wouldn't just leave a disabled ship that has engine trouble behind, while all the others flee. Not being a programmer, I'm not sure how difficult that this would be to create, so I couldn't begin to tell anyone how it could be done. I do realize that this topic is way down on the list of priorities, but I do find it interesting that the first topic on this list is "downed pilot", so you would think that if a rescue effort was important enough to save one guy, then certainly rescuing a whole ship must rank pretty high up there, as well. In any case, this is just me throwing in my two cents for a topic that personally interests me. Truthfully, however, there are many other things that are on the list that I would vote for before I voted for long before I voted for my own suggestion. <G> Thanks for taking the suggestion under consideration. Doug

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/29/2018 4:48:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DWReese I've mentioned this one before, and it has now listed as a choice (thank you), but I would again like to mention having the ability to tow other ships. Quite often, I encounter a situation where an otherwise-good ship becomes disabled in the water. I do realize that the time restraints on the scenario would not usually be conducive to tow another ship, but there are times when it could happen. For example, if a Task Force was damaged in battle and found it necessary to withdraw from the area (rather than advance), I'm certain that they wouldn't just leave a disabled ship that has engine trouble behind, while all the others flee. Not being a programmer, I'm not sure how difficult that this would be to create, so I couldn't begin to tell anyone how it could be done. I do realize that this topic is way down on the list of priorities, but I do find it interesting that the first topic on this list is "downed pilot", so you would think that if a rescue effort was important enough to save one guy, then certainly rescuing a whole ship must rank pretty high up there, as well. In any case, this is just me throwing in my two cents for a topic that personally interests me. Truthfully, however, there are many other things that are on the list that I would vote for before I voted for long before I voted for my own suggestion. <G> Thanks for taking the suggestion under consideration. Doug That could make for some pretty cool scenarios... like towing a carrier out of the gulf... Or towing a carrier through a submarine threat... Or even convoy duty...

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (4/29/2018 5:36:27 PM)
In many conflict situations, something happens to disable a ship (or plane--like in China with EP-3 Aries in 2001 in the South China Sea) and a political/military crisis develops as a result. The USS Pueblo was a spy ship in 1968 and was captured by North Korea. (As a side note, the USS Pueblo is still being held in Pyongyang as a trophy, and it is still listed as a Commissioned Vessel of the USN.) While the real vessel did not suffer any propulsion damage, a disabled propulsion system could make for a good backdrop for a scenario. In fact, in Tom Clancy's latest book, a US spy vessel does become disabled and has to be rescued. A race-against-time situation develops which could also make for a good scenario starter backdrop. In any case, in my opinion, it is a worthwhile back-burner endeavor that could be useful. Doug

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/1/2018 11:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DWReese In many conflict situations, something happens to disable a ship (or plane--like in China with EP-3 Aries in 2001 in the South China Sea) and a political/military crisis develops as a result. The USS Pueblo was a spy ship in 1968 and was captured by North Korea. (As a side note, the USS Pueblo is still being held in Pyongyang as a trophy, and it is still listed as a Commissioned Vessel of the USN.) While the real vessel did not suffer any propulsion damage, a disabled propulsion system could make for a good backdrop for a scenario. In fact, in Tom Clancy's latest book, a US spy vessel does become disabled and has to be rescued. A race-against-time situation develops which could also make for a good scenario starter backdrop. In any case, in my opinion, it is a worthwhile back-burner endeavor that could be useful. Doug Another couple of fun ideas. :)

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/1/2018 11:53:45 PM)
Indeed. Doug

Dysta -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/15/2018 11:38:41 AM)
Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:. https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944

SunlitZelkova -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/15/2018 8:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dysta Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:. https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944 Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think. Over penetration would be nice though.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

1.796875