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

hb921 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/19/2014 1:29:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn The reverse is correct; we initially implemented it for group members as this is the most common use case. Great news - I will wait for release of Build 526 or higher. In mean time I will cast my vote for other feature.

PaulWRoberts -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/25/2014 3:54:34 PM)
I feel that something like Sprint-Drift, which would add important real-world behavior the the modeling of ASW operations, is far more important than various graphics and presentation improvements on the list. I'm a little surprised it's not in the game already.

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/25/2014 5:13:21 PM)
Sprint and drift is currently being tested in beta[:)]

PaulWRoberts -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (5/25/2014 5:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikmyk Sprint and drift is currently being tested in beta[:)] Hooray! And thanks.

Jdegani -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/6/2014 5:10:51 PM)
Absolutely loving the game. Never played Harpoon but did play Jane's Fleet Command way back when and was looking for something newer and better. This is way awesome. Definitely takes awhile to learn but I'm really enjoying it. A TOT planner would probably get my vote but it sounds like that's already in the works and has the most votes anyway. I was wondering if it might be possible to enable the "disengage" command for entire groups. Sometimes I'll want a group of fighters to all drop their weapon assignments and redirect them for something else. For example, an enemy group I was trying to pounce on just fired off a bunch of missiles and I want to turn and outrun them before re-engaging. Is there a different way that we should be ordering that or do you think it would be useful to disengage all the members of a group with one command? Thanks!

kimaera026 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/8/2014 3:48:19 PM)
I have two. 1 - Sort of an enhancement of the 1/3 rule option. Somewhat similar to what already proposed. I too like the "specify amount of airborne units in a 1/3 ruled mission". I'd like a "autogroup" option, so your specified amount of airborne units is always grouped. I find it a chore to always re-group them manually, and it would be useful to have, especially for the AI, so the enemy would do that too and it would feel like being against formations of enemy aircraft and point+wingmen patrols. In reality, fighters rarely operate individually. They often have a wingmen. 2 - Flight operations. Maybe it's being expanded already. That said, I'd like it more customisable, from what I'm seeing in 536. At the moment it's all automatic. Planes are assigned to either parking, hangar, pads, or flight deck, according to some mechanic i'm yet to understand. It'd be better if, in auto, it would assign the ones with a ready loadout to open parking and flight deck, rathen than hangar, which would suit reserve, maintanance, and generally inactive or readying aircraft. And i'd like the option to direct them myself. Say i'm readying a flight of two aicraft for a strike. I want them on the flight deck when their loadout is ready, so I can launch them straight away. Maybe it's already working like this, or maybe not. Or maybe the difference from hangar and flight deck is so small still that it doesnt make a difference. I don't know for sure.

Pergite! -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/18/2014 10:33:52 PM)
I have a suggestion to add more (cosmetic) posture markings that can be used when manually classifying targets. Today it's not possible to distinguish different sides with the symbols available unless you make them either neutral or hostile. It's currently not possible to manually mark anyone as unfriendly. In modern C2 software the option exist to colour code different side within a what this game calls a posture. Take a complex 90s Balkan scenario, or modern Syria for example. All combatants would in the Command GUI be either unfriendly (orange) or neutral (green). But why not implement the possibility for the player to manually mark each side with a colour to distinguish them from each other. In game logic terms it would in this case be a good idea to have two subcategories to tell if the side is unfriendly or neutral to determine how contacts are handled and prosecuted by the simulation. Some of one sides platforms could require closer attention than others which would enable the player to decide if he want his AI to shadow one sides Sigint aircraft, but ignore his auxillery ships. To clarify what I am talking about: Side 1 Purple (Neutral) Purple (Unfriendly) Side 2 Magenta (Neutral) Magenta (Unfriendly) Side 3 ...etc These markings are only meant to create better situational awareness for the player and should no alter anything of how Command currently handles postures.

KewDok -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 2:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tomcat84 other than TOT planner (which I think still has my vote?) something I thought of this morning: request the ability to fine tune the 1/3rd rule. Add a custom option. aka i want 1 or 4 regardless of how many I assigned. This would work in following examples: Support mission with 6 E-3 AWACS assigned but I specify I only want ONE airborne. Patrol missoin with 9 F-15Cs assigned but I specify that I want 4 airborne at all times. I support the TOT planner as primary priority right now as well. I would also love to see this feature mentioned here refined, however. I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage. The new flights should arrive, and then the RTB can happen. It is a another factor in the fuel calculations, but I hope it is doable. This is particularly important for AEW missions, as I want complete coverage, all the time.

Pukeko -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 3:06:49 AM)
quote: I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage. Second this. As when you start a scenario you assign a lot of planes to a mission all at once. So they all go bingo fuel at the same time.

KewDok -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 7:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pukeko As when you start a scenario you assign a lot of planes to a mission all at once. So they all go bingo fuel at the same time. If you use 1/3 rule this will not happen. Units will be in "reserve" and replace units on RTB or dead. But 1/3 rule will leave gaps, as I mentioned in my post.

Pukeko -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 9:22:08 AM)
quote: If you use 1/3 rule this will not happen. Ah, yes it does. It's happened to me many times. I now don't assign all the aircraft to a mission at the start of a scenario so when the aircraft do hit bingo fuel, they all don't head back at once and leave me with no/minimal aircraft in the patrol zone. quote: But 1/3 rule will leave gaps, as I mentioned in my post. True, that's why I am seconding your post. We both agree that it would be better to change 1/3 rule so the bingo fuel aircraft is leaving the patrol zone at the same time that the replacement aircraft is entering it. It's not too big a deal if the patrol zone is near the airbase/carrier, but it is a much bigger deal if the patrol area is far away. Especially tankers/maritime patrol aircraft. They have very long ranges and are fairly slow.

kimaera026 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 9:32:04 AM)
it could be done with a "pre-bingo" trigger, maybe? That calculates the time it takes for the aircraft to fly to the patrol zone (including take-off times) and substract it from the time the aicraft on active patrol has got before hitting its bingo fuel. Sounds easy to me, in fact I can pretty much do it manually without even thinking about it. But im not sure if it's as easy to implement, but I wouldn't think it's impossible.

KewDok -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (6/22/2014 9:36:52 AM)
Ah, sorry for misunderstanding what you meant.

Grubwurm -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/4/2014 5:36:29 PM)
What I want is not on this list - Editable DB.

ckfinite -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/4/2014 8:12:49 PM)
You can do it with a little bit of knowledge of SQL and a SQL editor. The underlying DB isn't that complex, and some guesswork goes a long way. You do have to keep updating your changes, but I'm working on something that should help with that.

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/8/2014 7:05:17 AM)
have the ability to use multiple monitors..... and more than one map window...

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/8/2014 7:08:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: magi have the ability to use multiple monitors..... and more than one map window... Multiple monitors have been supported even from v1.0. Multiple map windows.... maybe someday.

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/8/2014 7:18:55 AM)
voice activated commands....

ETF -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/9/2014 2:21:48 PM)
Congrats on an amazing update. Sorry if mentioned above. How are we coming with engaging a REAL opponent :) Where are we with Multiplayer options?

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/9/2014 2:26:54 PM)
Thanks. Currently multiplayer is possible via Baloogan's Joint-Command plugin, available here: http://baloogancampaign.com/command-plugins/joint-command/ Other modes of MP are being considered for development in the future.

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/9/2014 7:55:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: magi have the ability to use multiple monitors..... and more than one map window... Multiple monitors have been supported even from v1.0. Multiple map windows.... maybe someday. oh cool... thank you....im gonna buy another monitor now... i started playing harpoon in like 91`92.... this game is so outstanding and bloody lovely to look at.... thank you guys... sometimes i spend hours moving around the map an going through the data base and dont run 5 minutes of game play....

magi -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/9/2014 8:03:50 PM)
i would love to see real time co`op play.....

Belthorian -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/10/2014 12:34:12 AM)
How about the ability to have multiple windows. I would love the ability to create zoom windows on targets and place them on my 2nd monitor to eliminate the constant zooming in and out.

Dimitris -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/10/2014 5:08:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Belthorian How about the ability to have multiple windows. I would love the ability to create zoom windows on targets and place them on my 2nd monitor to eliminate the constant zooming in and out. You can use quick-jump slots to accomplish this. See the 'user interface' section on the manual addendum pages.

Feltan -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/10/2014 11:32:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: Belthorian How about the ability to have multiple windows. I would love the ability to create zoom windows on targets and place them on my 2nd monitor to eliminate the constant zooming in and out. You can use quick-jump slots to accomplish this. See the 'user interface' section on the manual addendum pages. This is a bad idea. With the amount of time I am sitting and playing this game, scrolling on the mouse to zoom in and out is the only reliable exercise I am getting! :-) Regards, Feltan

jufinace20 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/15/2014 9:48:16 PM)
Suggestions 1) Probably someone already proposed this: the ability of adding vectorial layers (e.g shp) to enhance the playing environment. 2) Some level of control over unit doctrines in order to enhance the fidelity of the behavior in some situations. For example Libians in the 80's firing at Egyptians, their stock of expensive weapons (e.g. missiles) was limited, and their salvoes would be most probably limited in number (keeping the remaining munitions until the first rounds came by the target). Right now the AI is always in WWIII mode, very effective, but usually wasting about half the salvo on a burning hulk. Keep the good work,[&o]

woos1981 -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/15/2014 11:55:15 PM)
Hi how can it be possible to add an Feature like land a ground unit from transportships and aircraft in Game? such as landing mission type or airborne order etc ,thanks!

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/16/2014 1:51:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwwws Hi how can it be possible to add an Feature like land a ground unit from transportships and aircraft in Game? such as landing mission type or airborne order etc ,thanks! This is already on our list. :)

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/16/2014 1:52:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan quote: ORIGINAL: Sunburn quote: ORIGINAL: Belthorian How about the ability to have multiple windows. I would love the ability to create zoom windows on targets and place them on my 2nd monitor to eliminate the constant zooming in and out. You can use quick-jump slots to accomplish this. See the 'user interface' section on the manual addendum pages. This is a bad idea. With the amount of time I am sitting and playing this game, scrolling on the mouse to zoom in and out is the only reliable exercise I am getting! :-) Regards, Feltan LOL[:D]

mikmykWS -> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features (7/16/2014 1:53:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jufinace20 Suggestions 1) Probably someone already proposed this: the ability of adding vectorial layers (e.g shp) to enhance the playing environment. 2) Some level of control over unit doctrines in order to enhance the fidelity of the behavior in some situations. For example Libians in the 80's firing at Egyptians, their stock of expensive weapons (e.g. missiles) was limited, and their salvoes would be most probably limited in number (keeping the remaining munitions until the first rounds came by the target). Right now the AI is always in WWIII mode, very effective, but usually wasting about half the salvo on a burning hulk. Keep the good work,[&o] Both are on our list. Thanks! Mike

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

0.71875