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

SakiNoE -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/12/2019 5:37:59 AM)
quote: No objections to the idea... but given the scope of play (days or at most weeks), would it be 'realistic'? Not sure why it wouldn't be. There has been at least one case of a person becoming an "ace-in-a-day" since WW2 [Muhammed Mahmood Alam, in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, famous for (according to the PAF) downing 5 IAF Hawker Hunters in 1 minute]. Israeli pilots in particular raked up impressive kill totals in Operations including Focus and Mole Cricket 19. Considering there are several CMANO scenarios that I can name off the top of my head [the majority of Fury scenarios, Don of a New Era, Spratly Spat, Yankee Team, several of the Shifting Sands DLCs etc] that involves high intensity air combat that makes it entirely possible for "pilots" to get ace-in-a-day status I'd say that this idea is hardly "unrealistic", if quite superficial as far as suggestions go. SakiNoE

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/18/2019 9:09:17 PM)
...

AlphaSierra -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/18/2019 9:11:03 PM)
...

lumiere -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/4/2019 7:23:23 PM)
Database link for Briefing/Special message Guess in briefing there is line like "PLAAF deployed J-20 Fighter armed with PL-15 Long-range AAM". It would be great if I could jump to Database Viewer after clicking "J-20 Fighter" and "PL-15 Long-range AAM" to quick-check the performances. Here is my idea: 1. "Insert Database Link" button like "Insert image" or "Insert Link" 2. Select text to link, Type of Unit (Dropdown), and database number (or "Add Unit"-like window).

serjames -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/31/2019 3:14:35 PM)
ability to filter unassigned units in the mission window using a text box filter... e.g. find all awacs for my mission. type "e-3" in the box

LMychajluk -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/1/2019 1:47:39 PM)
In Steam, as a 'Property' of the game in the Library, there's an option to Opt-In to Beta versions. Would it be possible to publish the Beta releases to Steam and allow us to Opt-in to the Beta updates in this manner?

vettim89 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/1/2019 3:05:33 PM)
Add ammunition as a cargo option. I realize this would be an enormous task to include all the available ammunition options. In longer scenarios a player could or would have to move ammo to bases that were running out. Also would allow a player to replace ammunition at a base where the magazines ere damaged or destroyed.

vettim89 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/3/2019 10:24:23 PM)
I am just going to add this here to vent my frustration. Would it be possible to add an option to disable the start/stop button and hot key while in editor mode. Nothing more frustrating than being hard at work writing a new event when you hear the "aircraft taking off" audio. Having to go back and reset to scenario start after such a moment can be frustrating. Could just be a bar on the editor pull down like "Enable God Mode" is now I cannot believe I am the only person who has done this

Randomizer -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/3/2019 11:22:26 PM)
Having written over twenty scenarios for public consumption and many more for trials, tests and personal use I can say with a clear conscious that I have never actually done this. So am happy with the run/pause button where it is. -C

stilesw -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/3/2019 11:35:33 PM)
Share feelings with Randomizer. No change really needed. -WS

duelok11 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/24/2019 1:03:13 PM)
I would like to suggest adding escort aircraft in cargo missions just like the mechanics of having escorts in strike missions since it can be used in paratrooper missions or transporting precious materials etc.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/24/2019 4:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Add ammunition as a cargo option. I realize this would be an enormous task to include all the available ammunition options. In longer scenarios a player could or would have to move ammo to bases that were running out. Also would allow a player to replace ammunition at a base where the magazines ere damaged or destroyed. This is being worked on.

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/25/2019 2:34:57 PM)
Please add Smoke. It can protect units by blocking LOS and laser-guided munitions. It also can conceal a ground unit's advancement on hostile territory. Doug

Gunner98 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/25/2019 5:34:48 PM)
quote: Please add Smoke. It can protect units by blocking LOS and laser-guided munitions. When adding smoke it is good to remember that smoke is not just smoke: -Smoke HC (hexachloroethane) blocks image optics but not IR (Infra-Red) or TI (Thermal Imagery) and Lasers can penetrate it at some degradation if the originator has IR or TI to view the target - has been around for a long time. -Smoke WP (White Phosphorus) blocks both image and IR but 'pillars' and leaves gaps in warm to hot weather. Starts fires really well. Banned (sort of) by the Geneva convention ~2005 as an inhumane weapon along with NAPALM but can still technically be used as a smoke round -Smoke RP (Red Phosphorus) is better and more modern than WP, more effective at spreading the smoke effect and is also useful to blind TI. In some definitions this is a multi-spectral smoke -Multi-Spectral Smoke. Designed to defeat visual, IR, TI and in some cases radar. Also wind and precipitation have a huge effect on smoke. On a damp, calm morning it can hang for a long time but will seek low ground so elevation has an impact. Calm dry days are perfect, gusty days or heavy rain - not so much. Randomizer can probably add chapter & verse to this... B

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/25/2019 5:48:33 PM)
Thanks Gunner Right now, I'd just settle for something that blocks LOS. <lol> This is really necessary for ground warfare, and for aviation targeting. I'm sure that it isn't very high on their "to-do list", but I do believe that it is very necessary. Perhaps you and Randomizer can further champion my request. <G> Doug

charlee22009 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/25/2019 7:44:21 PM)
Really need a time/fuel/distance planner for aircraft for before they take off. Not necessarily a strike planner (although that would be great.) This way it would be so much easier to see fuel consumption and time, with certain pre-planned waypoints and speeds for aircraft. This would be for planning purposes. Before takeoff, the computer could calculate time, fuel, distance, % fuel remaining, time to bingo fuel, as well as radius-of action remaining. This is 100% realistic, whether it�s modern-era (done with the flight management system or FMS or similar computers) or reaching back into the 50s and 60s with manual flight planning.

Randomizer -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/25/2019 7:45:54 PM)
Wish that I had a dollar for every smoke fire mission (using deliberate or quick procedures) that did not work as intended... I would argue that before you can add smoke to the simulation you absolutely require the modelling of wind direction and velocity. There are a great many instances where laying smoke will be either ineffective, counter-productive or both. Adding a more representative local weather model BEFORE adding smoke to ground combat seems far more reasonable than slapping a one-size-fits-all model where wind direction and velocity are irrelevant. Smoke in modern naval combat as intended for CMANO is, in almost every instance, completely useless in my opinion. -C

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/26/2019 12:01:36 AM)
Really? Wow! I trained with our SWAT team (one of the finest in the nation) and we utilized smoke quite often. Primarily, it concealed our advances when attempting to cross an open area to get to our designated target location. Without smoke, it was essentially a "killing field." Granted, this was in a very defined area. I have thought about smoke in CMANO being utilized in two distinct situations. (I'm sure that there are more.) First, from what I have been told, the smoke could degrade/diminish the laser capability for attacks. Is this not the case? I know that if I try to aim the laser-guided sights from my handgun it will not penetrate the smoke. So, I have no idea where I should be aiming. Granted, it may be only temporary, but it is certainly an effective way to lessen the attacker's kill percentage as they would effectively shooting blind. (Obviously, I'm talking about real life.) Now, if planes are different because they fly above that, or they aren't actually affected by that, I wouldn't know.) Second, and this is because I have been using some of CMANO's cargo/land attack scenarios (such as Gunner98's H-Hour), if an attacking force approaches from a distance without the use of smoke, they can easily be picked off by the defender. If smoke were present, I assume that they would be able to get much closer (like with the SWAT example above) before the enemy could actually start seeing. From what I have seen in the footage of the Normandy Invasion, it certainly looks like smoke could have helped there. Perhaps they had it and it got whisked away, which probably actually proves your point. But, if smoke could have been available and could have been used, then it certainly looks like we would have had a lot less soldiers killed trying to make it to the beachheads. Finally, I'm not trying to argue about the actual effects of smoke. I'm certainly no expert. I gather that you are. But, I can say that we have used smoke often in real life, and it provided great concealment for our advance. Without it, we would have had a lot of dead cops. Doug

Randomizer -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/26/2019 5:38:05 AM)
If you cannot understand that there is a world of difference between smoking off a room, a building or even part of a street with smoke grenades (delivered by hand, rifle, launcher or generators) and trying to smoke off part of a thousand acre plus battlefield with artillery and or mortars then there is certainly nothing more that can be said. There are several orders of magnitude of difficulty between screening a single vehicle using its integral smoke grenade launchers and screening a company in action. I would argue that the former scale is much too small for CMANO and the latter absolutely requires a more detailed weather model than now exists. -C

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/26/2019 1:25:07 PM)
If you cannot understand that there is a world of difference between smoking off a room, a building or even part of a street with smoke grenades (delivered by hand, rifle, launcher or generators) and trying to smoke off part of a thousand acre plus battlefield with artillery and or mortars then there is certainly nothing more that can be said. Wow! Who said that I couldn't understand the difference? In fact, if you actually read what I previously wrote, you would see that I even mentioned the differences. Smoke (at least on a small scale) is a very valuable tool that could help units advance on enemy-held positions. I've actually deployed it many times in REAL LIFE. I'm not just talking about it. And, as I said, smoke can blind laser sighting, which I know is equally important. As I said, I have not used it on a large-scale battlefield such as what you are describing but, then again, I never actually described using it on a "large-scale battlefield" situation. I merely stated that I would like to have smoke be an option, even if it could be used on a small scale only. Doug

DWReese -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (8/26/2019 6:42:15 PM)
Perhaps, as an alternative, some kind of smoke defense option could be created that could degrade the enemy's ability to detect (see) the defending unit, or something (treated like chaff) that could temporarily degrade the weapon effectiveness of those fired against it. I believe that those could offer some relief without changing things too much, until a more permanent solution could be created. Doug

Silleron -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/3/2019 4:05:52 PM)
My request for CMANO is simple. I would like to see more refinable search filters for units added to CMANO, such as searching for fighters only, or multiroles only, ssgn only, SAM only. Also a filter for individual branches (army,navy,air force etc...) etc... I think the filters would work for air,sea,sub, and facilites equally if done correctly and would make designing scenarios much easier on myself and anyone else who makes them for the game. anyway that's my two cents worth and thank you so much for creating this outstanding game!

ARCNA442 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/10/2019 6:45:16 AM)
Could we have a way to not see friendly missiles unless they have a datalink? The way it's set up now you can fire your missiles and know exactly how many hit and how many were shot down even when they are far over the horizon, giving the player far too much information that he really shouldn't have.

Tookatee -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/17/2019 11:05:42 AM)
So will this poll (and by extension the other requests made under it) now be applicable to the recently announced CMO or will we still expect to see some of these requests released for CMANO before CMO is released?

guanotwozero -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/24/2019 10:40:44 AM)
Request: Reserved Refuel List I'd like to restrict a tanker mission to allow only certain planes to refuel. The Tanker Planner could include a "Reserved" add-to list, similar to how planes are added to missions. The tanker mission would only be available to planes on that list. Also useful would be the ability to set a maximum per-receiver fuel quantity and a Lua-friendly "Open for Business" trigger so that tankers will only dispense at a particular mission area (or potential other event). While CMO won't come with an advanced mission planner, these added abilities would enable more useful control over how we run complex missions with calculated fuel plans.

LMychajluk -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/24/2019 4:35:48 PM)
@guanotwozero - Can't we already do that in CMANO? -Disable AAR for the side -Enable it for the Tanker Missions -Enable it for the Missions that you want to refuel, with the specific Tanker Missions selected? I often do this to keep those pesky CAP fighter pilots that are on course to intercept a bogey 80mi away from deciding they have to refuel NOW at a tanker that is 300mi away on the opposite side of a SAM site...

hellfish6 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/24/2019 5:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 quote: Please add Smoke. It can protect units by blocking LOS and laser-guided munitions. When adding smoke it is good to remember that smoke is not just smoke: -Smoke HC (hexachloroethane) blocks image optics but not IR (Infra-Red) or TI (Thermal Imagery) and Lasers can penetrate it at some degradation if the originator has IR or TI to view the target - has been around for a long time. -Smoke WP (White Phosphorus) blocks both image and IR but 'pillars' and leaves gaps in warm to hot weather. Starts fires really well. Banned (sort of) by the Geneva convention ~2005 as an inhumane weapon along with NAPALM but can still technically be used as a smoke round -Smoke RP (Red Phosphorus) is better and more modern than WP, more effective at spreading the smoke effect and is also useful to blind TI. In some definitions this is a multi-spectral smoke -Multi-Spectral Smoke. Designed to defeat visual, IR, TI and in some cases radar. Also wind and precipitation have a huge effect on smoke. On a damp, calm morning it can hang for a long time but will seek low ground so elevation has an impact. Calm dry days are perfect, gusty days or heavy rain - not so much. Randomizer can probably add chapter & verse to this... B There's also the always fun "The rebels/insurgents/terrorists lit tires on fire to make smoke" kind of smoke that comes from burning ordinary things. Also makes a hell of a beacon if you get disoriented, or gets you to pay attention to something if, flying in on a target, there's a whole lotta smoke coming from something else.

Gunner98 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (9/24/2019 10:12:58 PM)
quote: There's also the always fun "The rebels/insurgents/terrorists lit tires on fire to make smoke" kind of smoke that comes from burning ordinary things. Also makes a hell of a beacon if you get disoriented, or gets you to pay attention to something if, flying in on a target, there's a whole lotta smoke coming from something else. [:D] very true. I can see it now - AI rebels running to the point of the smoke while at the same time improving the POH of dumb bombs because the pilot has an aim point -- lots of options...

guanotwozero -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (9/25/2019 4:01:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LMychajluk @guanotwozero - Can't we already do that in CMANO? -Disable AAR for the side -Enable it for the Tanker Missions -Enable it for the Missions that you want to refuel, with the specific Tanker Missions selected? I often do this to keep those pesky CAP fighter pilots that are on course to intercept a bogey 80mi away from deciding they have to refuel NOW at a tanker that is 300mi away on the opposite side of a SAM site... That'll work fine if I've only a few missions needing refuelled, but if I've multiple missions (tanking + combat) all over the place I won't want to disable AAR for my side. Also, for a scenario involving tankers accompanying strike aircraft, it would be useful to determine which specific aircraft they refuel at what point. Sure, I could do it all manually, but one of the strengths of CMANO (& CMO presumably) is to be able to automate many parts of missions - this would help.

macinlew -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] (10/6/2019 5:35:02 PM)
In the Run for a specific chunk of simulated time, then stop: category I have a feature request. So I'm using this feature and I see something happen, sunk ship, aircraft shot down, weapon misses target, etc., and I want to go back to the start of the selected chunk of simulated time that just finished, and do it over again without having to save before I select the chunk of time and reload the save. Ideally being able to scroll through what happened in that chunk of time like scrolling through a video and restarting right before the event is what I really want. I can see how doing that could impact performance but maybe an option if you're willing to sacrifice the performance? And when I say restarting I mean it actually runs the simulation again from that point and not just replay what happened before. So for example being able to scroll through the message log window and click on a message and restart the simulation at that point, and while we're being unrealistic could it find me a better wife, make me a better husband, raise my kids right and make me king of the world... Woo Hooo!

Page: << < prev 28 29 30 [31] 32 next > >>

0.7177734