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

coolts -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/19/2013 11:31:25 AM)
I'm surprised more people not voting for TOT/TOS. What's more important to mission execution? Having your weapons in the right place at the right time, or having a few beeps and burps coming from your speakers? Democracy eh? [:D]

chelu -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/19/2013 4:14:26 PM)
I think that refining the air combat evasion is really important. It should also include missile performance againts aircraft or other missiles. Sometimes the number of missiles fired is really high, like three f-16 firing at one su30 two amraam each... And the su30 evades all amraams! There are several scenarios with this situation.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/19/2013 4:38:17 PM)
Okay, this is starting to get annoying. Guys, it's not simply "the Su-30 evaded all 6 AMRAAMs". Without seeing the message log (which is essential for such a discussion), I would guess that some of them were spoofed, some were jammed, some were evaded, maybe a couple were outrun etc. etc. You guys have to stop treating AAW missiles with such reverence. AAMs (and SAMs) in combat _miss all the time_. They are jammed, spoofed, blinded, decoyed, out-turned, outrun, and soon they'll start getting fried mid-air by DEWs. The West's most advanced in-service BVR missile (AMRAAM) has a 55% combat kill rate against mostly obsolete aircraft, and it has never been employed against modern countermeasures. Think about that for a moment. Against a modern fighter with state-of-the-art DECM? Good luck. We are aware that there is still the issue of aircraft retaining their energy reserves after successive evasions in the game, but anyone thinking that getting this fixed will, on its own, drastically alter the kill ratios against modern adversaries, is in for a rude shock. Now that B460 is out, try this test: Pick that Su-30 (it's a modern variant, right?) and slide the proficiency bar all the way down to novice. Then throw all the AMRAAMs you want at it. Save the message log, and notice how many of the misses were due to kinematic evasion and how many were due to electronic or other countermeasures. If you want to argue that DECM may be too effective, or that chaff/flares are overmodeled, fine. Let's get into that. We're not perfect and our models probably aren't either. But this whole "aircraft are super-evasive!!!!" thing has been blown out of every possible proportion. We're long past the age of "I'll hit the brakes and he'll fly right by", guys. Kurt Plummer is right. Better bullets win.

riflebrigade -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/19/2013 10:35:24 PM)
Would it be possible to be able to enter a Proficiency level for each unit?

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/20/2013 5:08:52 AM)
Added.

El Savior -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/20/2013 4:06:31 PM)
If I remember correct in Vietnam war only about 5% of SAM missiles actually hit target. I'm happy how the missiles hit or do not hit targets. Of course it is sometimes frustrating to see how often my carefully planned attacks fail. Log is good and explains a lot why missile did not hit. In my current 1983 scenario USSR vs. USA carrier task force I found out how good F-14 Tomcats are with their long-range AA-missiles. Only MiG-31 seem to be good enough against them. Thankfully Soviets did have many fighters to encounter American forces. [:D]

thbrix -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/20/2013 8:56:52 PM)
Me too! I thought that wish would sky rocket, because it really puzzles me how in earth you are able to coordinate anything without it??? Maybe because there is more interest towards naval than air? Well i just hope the feature arrives at some time... quote: ORIGINAL: coolts I'm surprised more people not voting for TOT/TOS. What's more important to mission execution? Having your weapons in the right place at the right time, or having a few beeps and burps coming from your speakers? Democracy eh? [:D]

Agathosdaimon -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/21/2013 8:35:37 AM)
i think TOT is extremly important too but perhaps there are a few reasons why it is not polling higher: - it appeared later in the poll and so many may have already selected an earlier option, but who would rather select TOT planner - the name TOT Planner should be changed to at least 'Time of Target planner' - people may not know what TOT Planner is and so just go for the more obvious things like sound effects, which i dont personally think are so important as TOT planner

JCR -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/21/2013 9:10:53 AM)
In order to have bombers survive nukes, could the AI do a post-target-turn (PTT) when carrying nukes? Immidiately break away after release, like it was SAC doctrine?

RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/21/2013 10:35:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JCR In order to have bombers survive nukes, could the AI do a post-target-turn (PTT) when carrying nukes? Immidiately break away after release, like it was SAC doctrine? [:D] Might be an idea for Engaged Defensive to take into account imminent nuclear weapons detonation.

coolts -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/21/2013 2:04:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon i think TOT is extremly important too but perhaps there are a few reasons why it is not polling higher: - it appeared later in the poll and so many may have already selected an earlier option, but who would rather select TOT planner - the name TOT Planner should be changed to at least 'Time of Target planner' - people may not know what TOT Planner is and so just go for the more obvious things like sound effects, which i dont personally think are so important as TOT planner That's a valid point. In fact, there should be a "no acronyms day", on these forums every now and again!........or NAD for short [:D]

JCR -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/21/2013 2:06:14 PM)
TINEFA There is no escape from acronyms

MR_BURNS2 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/22/2013 4:09:48 AM)
Edit Patrol Area for Strike/Air Intercept mission.

jdkbph -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/22/2013 2:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: riflebrigade Would it be possible to be able to enter a Proficiency level for each unit? I voted for something else a while back when the list was much shorter so now I can't vote for this. But for what it's worth, I would if I could. JD

Sator -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/23/2013 2:28:28 PM)
+1. I think admin could reset the poll and let we vote again.

thbrix -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/24/2013 10:17:29 AM)
Suggestion; "Jump to location" links in the message log.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/25/2013 5:48:50 AM)
Removed "Background music" (added in B465) and "Secondary windows should remember position & size" (added in B466). If you voted for these you can vote again.

damarafaka -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/27/2013 6:31:48 PM)
I would request that Command be tablet/touch ready allowing play on full windows capable tablets. It would be nice to pinch-zoom with fingers, micromanage with stylus instead of a mouse and being able to leave the physical keyboard completely out of the picture. Could open up a different way of playing the simulator. Could be fun.

tommo8993 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/27/2013 6:53:21 PM)
The one think I would want is a simple "drag box" style of ASW missions. At the moment I cant do ASW, too complicated. But if it was just as simple as select an attack option, then drag a box in the area you want to search. Then I'm sorted for must have features in the game.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/27/2013 7:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tommo8993 The one think I would want is a simple "drag box" style of ASW missions. At the moment I cant do ASW, too complicated. But if it was just as simple as select an attack option, then drag a box in the area you want to search. Then I'm sorted for must have features in the game. I think you can already do that. Define an area (right-click on map, select "define area", left-drag mouse to define area rectangle), create an ASW mission using this area, assign the desired units to that mission, and off they go.

JCR -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/28/2013 10:46:02 PM)
Another small idea: How about showing weapon mount arcs in the database viewer?

riflebrigade -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/29/2013 9:58:34 PM)
Sunburn has the ability to enter a Proficiency level for each unit been added to the game? If so how is this accessed? I asked if this could be added on the 11/19/2013 and your following post of 11/20/2013 advised "added", was this for unit Proficiency levels?

ExMachina -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/29/2013 10:58:25 PM)
Cavitation control. How about a select-able option in the F2 menu for "No Cavitation"? When checked, the unit will never go fast enough to cavitate regardless of speed selected (evasive manuvers would over-ride). For example, this option would allow the player to set subs to flank speed and, regardless of depth, they would always maintain their fastest possible speed below the cavitation threshold.

snowburn -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/29/2013 11:47:06 PM)
Time to remove: More sounds :)

Alex170g -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 12:58:42 AM)
Two interface improvement that I would love to see 1.- the ability to mark a contact not just neutral, hostile etc, but also add the ability to the human player to determine a class type for a contact, later, when the AI gets more data, it can show the correct class type. Hmm!, this contact should be a enemy trawler, don�t overshoot SSM at her�..minutes later�.-sir, remember that target that you suppose that was a trawler, in fact it�s krivak class warship 2.- the ability to know what each patform is detecting�this had been discussed in other threats, and to avoid a large list of contacts I think the best method can be selecting a single friendly unit and then select a single target unit , a command (key board combo, drop down menu or button)should bring a list with all the sensors from the friendly unit, and a single yes or no to show if the target unit is detected by that sensor. example: I would like to know when my aircraft�s radar is breaking enemy jamming, and thus painting a target to attack it with SARH

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 7:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: riflebrigade Sunburn has the ability to enter a Proficiency level for each unit been added to the game? If so how is this accessed? I asked if this could be added on the 11/19/2013 and your following post of 11/20/2013 advised "added", was this for unit Proficiency levels? I meant it was added to the poll. Apologies for the confusion.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 7:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JCR Another small idea: How about showing weapon mount arcs in the database viewer? Thanks, added.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 8:08:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExMachina Cavitation control. How about a select-able option in the F2 menu for "No Cavitation"? When checked, the unit will never go fast enough to cavitate regardless of speed selected (evasive manuvers would over-ride). For example, this option would allow the player to set subs to flank speed and, regardless of depth, they would always maintain their fastest possible speed below the cavitation threshold. Nice idea! Added.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 8:10:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: snowburn Time to remove: More sounds :) Tempted to do this, but I think we still need optional sounds for message types (or possibly integrating some of the SeaHag functionality). So leaving it open for a while yet.

thbrix -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (11/30/2013 8:47:24 AM)
Hi I am playing with the editor, and i miss the ability to "Draw" on the map. I would like to draw boxes, circles, corridors and write text, all this in different colours. I need this to be able to define areas of responsibility, airspacelimits and so forth. This tool would also have value in "non-editor-mode". So the player can use the drawing tool in all missions. The drawing should of course be saved with the missionfile. Maybe its a crazy idea, what do i know, but i think it would a great tool, both in missiondesign and play. Best regards.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

0.671875