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

VIF2NE -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/5/2018 2:22:31 PM)
If this is a marine simulator, you need sea currents. For example, the submarine moves on electric motors against the current of 5 knots. It is necessary to increase the speed to cruise.

Amnectrus -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/14/2018 2:44:08 AM)
I have some UI suggestions relating to dipping sonars, in decreasing order of importance: 1. It would help a lot to have the game display the current depth of the dipping sonar, I would suggest in the Status text on the right-hand bar, like "Status: My ASW Mission (Deploying Dipping Sonar (3 min 45 sec), Depth -131 ft)". 2. Can we get a way to manually control the depth similar to how it's done for sonobuoys? For instance, right-click the unit, go to ASW-specific actions, Deploy Dipping Sonar, and then have an arrow like the sonobuoy options, and then show the various depth bands (Periscope, Shallow, Just Over, Just Under, Max Depth, or Random) or just "Shallow"/"Deep". 3. For times when the depth will be chosen automatically, like on ASW missions, can we get an option to bias the search? For instance, in the mission editor screen, a dropdown with options for Random, Shallow, and Deep, where Random keeps the existing behavior, and Shallow and Deep make it more likely by some percentage that a shallow or deep depth will be chosen. For instance, if you pick Shallow, maybe instead of 50% of the dips being above the layer and 50% below, it will be 75% above the layer and 25% below. Seems like this could be useful if you know the subs you're searching for are more likely to be above or below the layer.

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/3/2018 10:27:35 PM)
D101 Anshan 135mm will not shell runway. Is this a failure on my part or a bug? Provided a zip file as an example. You will have to switch to China to test. Please let me know. [I have to admit, the 4 Anshans blew the snot out of the rest of the base, but the runway is target I really want blasted.] quote: ORIGINAL: Dimitris Yes, only HE weapons above a certain yield are valid for anti-runway work. This is deliberate, to prevent the AI from doing stupid things like peppering a runway with e.g. low-caliber shells that don't even scratch the pavement. Would it be possible to add runways to both CWDB and DB3000 runways out of other material... for example Khe Sanh's runway was multiple metal plates and was damaged by rockets, and there are many 'rough fields'... those sorts of things more easily damaged?

Amnectrus -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (10/16/2018 4:22:27 AM)
I've noticed that the AI doesn't seem to use the best tactics to ID enemies using NCTR-JEM. For that, you want to ideally have the enemy flying directly at you, or with a very small frontal aspect angle. But when the AI intercepts an unknown contact, it flies an intercept course, and then the enemy does the same, so they sometimes end up closing at a shallower angle to each other, and not getting an ID almost until the merge (or the Soviet plane gets an ID first with their IR system and fires, which usually marks it as hostile and finally allows the fight to start). Attached save illustrates the issue. Both sets of planes are flying an intercept course on the others. If you let them go under AI control, they'll actually keep the targets outside of their radar cones. The F-15s will never get the needed angle to ID the Su-27s, and the Flankers will finally get the first ID with their IR system at knife-fighting range and fire first. But if you manually turn the F-15s toward the Flankers, they'll fly straight at you to intercept, allowing the F-15s to ID them at 50 miles with NCTR-JEM and start shooting first at much longer range. If you have AMRAAMs and they have Alamos, this means you will usually win the engagement. I would suggest as a possible modification to the AI: for planes with NCTR-JEM, when doing an intercept of an unknown target, turn directly toward it every 20 or 30 seconds, wait for a couple of radar sweeps to see if you get an ID, and then resume the intercept course. Another thing I'd suggest is that if the enemy contact information gets more than about 10 seconds old, turn toward the enemy until it's in the fighter's radar cone to update the contact and keep it updated. Better to run a lag intercept than lose the contact and risk him turning toward you while you're not able to see him. In real life, this would be not be as big an issue as you could use the full gimbal range of your radar to look further to the side when doing an intercept.

overkill01 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/3/2018 8:06:38 AM)
Make it less of a hassle to get things done. I.e. improvements to the interface. - OBB, option to disable to center map, give orders from OBB-window (e.g. to launch aircraft) - OBB, more info about the unit. ( e.g. is it launched or not ?) - click on messages to go to location or select unit. - ability to change hotkeys, more hotkeys - delete all waypoints with 1 click or button - ...

Archer53 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (11/3/2018 1:43:37 PM)
If we can do 'sprint and drift' for speed - we have to be able to do 'intermittent sensors' for the emitters! The old Harpoon even threw in a random factor for both on and off times for each unit. That sure beats burning a hole in the (wet or dry) ether for all the units in the scenario and turning them all off at the same time - or manually doing the same for each unit ....

ARCNA442 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (11/7/2018 11:15:18 PM)
Under "Side Doctrine, EMCON Settings," would it be possible to have separate settings for Ships / Aircraft / Submarines / Facilities? I generally want aircraft and facilities to be active and submarines and ships to be passive, but there is no simple way to do that right now other then setting every unit/formation individually.

Filitch -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (11/8/2018 6:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ARCNA442 Under "Side Doctrine, EMCON Settings," would it be possible to have separate settings for Ships / Aircraft / Submarines / Facilities? I generally want aircraft and facilities to be active and submarines and ships to be passive, but there is no simple way to do that right now other then setting every unit/formation individually. You can do it using mission's Doctrine

TYHo -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/9/2018 3:17:48 PM)
Is it possible that an unit can improve its status from novice to veteran after gaining combat experience, and eventually becoming an ace after shooting down enemy aircraft? And it'll be cool if we can track how many 'confirmed kills' an unit have made. [:)]

ARCNA442 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/9/2018 9:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Filitch You can do it using mission's Doctrine That only works if the unit is assigned to a mission and they revert back to side doctrine if they are removed from the mission. quote: ORIGINAL: TYHo Is it possible that an unit can improve its status from novice to veteran after gaining combat experience, and eventually becoming an ace after shooting down enemy aircraft? And it'll be cool if we can track how many 'confirmed kills' an unit have made. [:)] I second this idea.

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/2/2018 4:19:56 AM)
Right now, escorts can only be assigned to units assigned to a Strike Mission. I would like to also have the ability to assign escorts to units on a Patrol Mission. It would help in situations where a P-3 is searching the area for a sub, but that area is close to where the enemy can send some fighters to splash the P-3. With an escort, the P-3 might have a chance to get away while the fighters duel it out. Doug

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/12/2018 9:10:32 PM)
Sorry Doug Replied to the wrong person

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/12/2018 9:13:03 PM)
OPDEC - Operational Deception I am sure this type of feature has been requested, possibly even more than IFF, but I have not been able to locate it. I can neither confirm or deny scuttlebutt that back in the day, occasionally, before deployment a semi trailer looking "box" was loaded onto the ship. This Box Allegedly contained equipment capable of making a fleet tug look like a CBG (electronically speaking). I would like to see a similar "Box" with radar and other electronic emissions, configurable as to number of platforms and type to allegedly emulate, this box can allegedly be ferried to basically anything with a flight deck. I have had success in CMANO using a buoy with different emitters "loaded" on it. So much success in fact, more than one has been nuked by red forces. These are difficult to deploy on the fly. Even though I am sure that nothing like this is ever actually done to confuse an enemy, I think maybe in a game/simulator like CMANO it might provide elements to the game many may find interesting. Thank you. HP

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/13/2018 2:07:48 AM)
I'm not saying that this is the same thing (maybe it is), but in one of Larry Bond's books on the South China Sea situation, Vietnam loads disguised SSMs (hidden under tarps)onto the deck of a merchant ship. The ship manages to surreptitiously a group of Chinese prized ships and sink a few before the return fire got them. I decided to try this concept out in CMANO. I loaded the weapons and the sensors onto a merchant ship, and was able to duplicate the attack. The merchant ship, for game purposes, appears to be a simple merchant ship, therefore it wasn't deemed to be the enemy. So, I know that it can be done. Perhaps this is what you were talking about. If not, just disregard. Doug

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/13/2018 7:46:04 PM)
I have done the same thing with civilian shipping and I suspect in just about any conflict we will see them in action for real. The box I would like doesn't have any bullets only electronics, to make them look like something they are not.

Filitch -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/14/2018 6:40:26 AM)
Resistance of SAMs, radars to jamming could depends on its proficiency level. Able radar operator can more effective work in complex conditions.

dpabrams -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/28/2018 5:22:14 PM)
I'm late to the game and I didn't read all the posts but I didn't see the following when skimming the ballot: 1. Orientation dial (Compass) instead of slider 2. Ability to save your map settings 3. "Last used" feature for the data base viewer and various other menu's. So you don't have to select "country" or "Show real-life platforms only" 4. Separate type category for land units that are not facilities. 5. Artillery that can fire. This sim is the BOMB!

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/28/2018 8:13:11 PM)
Any radar operator is taught on the first day to ignore "jamming" as it tells the Jammer it is "working" In other words no operator worth their salt would ever change the freq of a jammed radar. I suspect this is why most modern radar operate on several frequencies simultaneously. IMO the SIM does an adequate job with jamming

Tiramisu -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/30/2018 1:32:59 PM)
I have many wishes, but for now I will make only a humble wish: Please add navigation buttons "back" and "forward" for the database page! A menu option for opening the mission briefing window would be also nice.

mikkey -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/30/2018 7:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tiramisu ... A menu option for opening the mission briefing window would be also nice. Tiramisu, mission briefing can be opened by using main menu "Game" -> "Scenario Description" and "Side Briefing". [image]local://upfiles/28255/0216C82D1396480C8EEA70A886B1351D.jpg[/image]

Tiramisu -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/31/2018 2:00:47 AM)
Oops... thank you! :D

KnightHawk75 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/31/2018 3:19:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tiramisu I have many wishes, but for now I will make only a humble wish: Please add navigation buttons "back" and "forward" for the database page! A menu option for opening the mission briefing window would be also nice. This really would be a nice addition (even if it were only just say 2-3 levels back\forward), it's something that smacks me in the face constantly as a frustration and time sync. I get something like this is probably not high on the priority list but it would be a very welcome addition in my view.

Glenn Beasley -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (12/31/2018 8:23:59 PM)
I would like to see "Kill" markings on individual A/C,Subs,Ships,AAA,SAM"s etc,I think it would be a nice enhancement to the Sim Scenarios

Marder -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (1/10/2019 11:34:41 AM)
I would like to be able to draw permanent lines on the map. For example, for the drawing of possible opponent courses. Nice would be an option for compact datablocks with just the unit name. (e.g. 4th option under "Map Settings -> Datablocks": All (compact)) That would just help beginners to have a better overview of the overall situation.

TitaniumTrout -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (1/19/2019 3:11:54 PM)
Could you please add a subsurface DB entry for "False Contact - Magnetic"? Thanks!

AKar -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (1/19/2019 4:39:44 PM)
What I'd like to have as an important, gameplay affecting addition would be accidents. Weapon malfunctions are already there, but having a real non-zero chance of losing airplanes in particular for mishaps would add something to the planning. Obviously, the model should be sensitive to the conditions: attempting something like NoE flying at high speed in poor weather with aircraft not well suited to it should carry significantly elevated risk of something going wrong in comparison to cruising at 35000 ft. Operations such as in-flight refueling should be something in between. Thinking out loud. :) Accidents do account for a significant portion of the losses in real ops.

TitaniumTrout -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (1/23/2019 10:40:42 PM)
I'd love to see a "safety" for creating scenarios. I recently made a bunch of changes to a scenario, tested it, and accidentally clicked 'Save' instead of 'Save As'. This overwrote the original start time so I lost the opening 45 minutes of the scenario. [image]https://lpix.org/3351666/Command_2019-01-23_07-42-37.png[/image] [image]https://lpix.org/3351667/Command_2019-01-23_07-44-40.png[/image] It would only be visible in the Scenario Editor. If you tried to save on accident it would give you a pop-up. [image]https://lpix.org/3352334/Command_2019-01-23_16-44-25.png[/image] Additionally it would be cool to have it offer to return you to the scenario start. Thanks guys!

Gunner98 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (1/23/2019 11:09:02 PM)
quote: accidentally clicked 'Save' instead of 'Save As' I've only done that a couple hundred times! [sm=00000436.gif]

Primarchx -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (1/23/2019 11:14:29 PM)
I'll chime in again. 1) Would really like the LOS Tool from the Pro Version. 2) An in-game timer as it would be nice to stop the game at certain points based on elapsed time or clock time for things like submarine course changes and strike planning. 3) Lastly I'd like more info on current acoustic signatures. What are my platforms' self-noise levels per band at current speed? What is the dB strength of current passive contacts to detecting platforms per band? This would add a needed component to sub and ASW ops.

tjhkkr -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (1/30/2019 2:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 quote: accidentally clicked 'Save' instead of 'Save As' I've only done that a couple hundred times! [sm=00000436.gif] Amen to that. I would really love a 'do you really want to do this?' on the save. I cannot tell you the number of times when testing a scenario I have done this...

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

0.6401367