RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Vici Supreme -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 5:22:47 PM)

[&o]



Primarchx -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 5:37:48 PM)

CGN 42 FTW! And cranked arrow Vipers! Awesome!



Dimitris -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 5:44:37 PM)

Yeah, the XL is one of the great what-ifs of that generation. (And its descendant, the F-16U, even more so).



ComDev -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 5:50:02 PM)

Yeah the F-16XL was a pretty strange aircraft. It only had ONE pylon per wing capable of carrying a 2000lb-class weapon or fuel tanks. But it had 12 hardpoints for 750lb bombs, 4x semi-recessed AMRAAMs and two wingtip rails for Sidewinders. So although it could carry the same number of Mk82s as the Strike Eagle, it could only mount half the number of Mk84s and no drop tanks.

So strange plane all round [8D]

Will be interesting to see what our scen designers gonna do with it!



AdmiralSteve -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 6:45:30 PM)

Such a great wedding anniversary gift to me. Thank you team.



ExNusquam -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 10:11:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nudnik

I was playing the Tanker Wars scenario and send out a Seahawk for recon. I RTB'd early so could use the quick turnaround.
After landing i got the following message:
15.04.2017 17:06:08 - USA: Tallboy #1 has flown 1 of 3 sorties. Total airborne time is 1 hrs 3 min of allowed 4 hrs. The loadout is day-only quick turnaround capable and it is currently night. Because of this the aircraft needs to stand down.

The loadout AGM-114M is day and night, lim all-weather capable. Same thing happens with a clean scenario and DB 429.
Is this correct or do i understand some thing completly wrong here?



The issue is that the loadout is only able to do quick-turnaround during the day. These restrictions are noted in the air-ops window.



Usili -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/13/2015 11:39:17 PM)

God bless you. God bless you developers.

I've been waiting on the Intruder II and Aegis Virginia. Thank you so very much. You've made my week. :D



OnFire -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/14/2015 11:09:30 AM)

Great update!!! Thanks alot devs



Zaslon -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/14/2015 12:17:52 PM)

Interesting update. Thank you very much!



Dimitris -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 6:57:14 AM)

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 4 (Build 678.13)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmVmMzMEZiOW5RRms/view?usp=sharing

How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case.


Changes from v1.08RC3 / B678.12
======================================================
Fixed #9546: Submarines surface when engaging surfaced submarines
FIXED: Grouped Mission Aircraft Do Not Release Weapons on first pass
Fixed #6427: Showing Targeting Vectors Issue for groups when showing ghosted units



strykerpsg -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 9:16:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yeah the F-16XL was a pretty strange aircraft. It only had ONE pylon per wing capable of carrying a 2000lb-class weapon or fuel tanks. But it had 12 hardpoints for 750lb bombs, 4x semi-recessed AMRAAMs and two wingtip rails for Sidewinders. So although it could carry the same number of Mk82s as the Strike Eagle, it could only mount half the number of Mk84s and no drop tanks.

So strange plane all round [8D]

Will be interesting to see what our scen designers gonna do with it!


I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.



thewood1 -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 12:55:07 PM)

Its in there...unit #4190.



nocacounsel -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 5:03:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.


It may not appear if you are in a scenario/saved game and haven't yet updated that scenario/saved game with the latest database (from the Editor). Otherwise, just start a blank scenario and then hit the database--you'll then see the new entries.

I've mistakenly missed a new unit because I didn't do the above as well. :/



thewood1 -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 6:15:56 PM)

Correct, if the scenario has not been rebuilt, its using an old version of the db, most likely.



Dimitris -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 9:06:34 PM)

Command v1.08 Release Candidate 5 (Build 678.14)

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B205vpZC1pGmekJmbHh0aGt0WU0/view?usp=sharing

How to install: Simply download from link and unzip to main Command installation folder. Answer "Yes" to any overwrite requests. Backup your current Command.exe, just in case.


Changes from v1.08RC4 / B678.13
======================================================
Fixed: Grouped A/C fire still won't fire as a group
Fixed again: ASW Aircraft unable to line up on target



DismalPseudoscience -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/15/2015 11:17:19 PM)

Hello! Loving lots of the changes, but there seems to be a major issue- a lot of land-attack weapons, like Tomahawks and LRAP gun rounds, have apparently lost their anti-airfield abilities. For instance, when I open up Brass Drum and select one of my ship groups, and then give a manual attack order on an airfield, the Tomahawks don't show up as an eligible weapon to attack runways and runway access points. This changes the dynamics of quite a few scenarios.

The issue appears to be that it has lost anti-runway targeting / now needs to be able to target runways to attack these. It seems a little strange to me that weapons that can target mobile units and fixed structures, like Tomahawks and JASSM, would not be able to attack runways and runway access points, even if they weren't always the most effective weapons in that role. Would you please consider allowing all weapons capable of targeting fixed structures to target runways as well?



ComDev -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 4:16:13 AM)

Yeah we changed the anti-runway capabilities to reflect the way these weapons are used in real life. Using a $1 million weapon to punch a single hole in a runway is a bit weird.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?



caron -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 8:09:05 AM)

I think the big issue is...we can't target "Single unit Airfield" too...that's a major drawback. Still...despite the fact that I agrre that using a tomahawk to dig a hole in the ground is not a clever solution, on the other hand...using some of em to shut down an air force, even for just some hours, could be a better and cheaper option instead of sending in a whole manned strike force.



strykerpsg -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 9:54:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: phatstar

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

I didn't find the XL in the database. I ensured to pull down real and hypothetical US aircraft with the latest DB build as of the last RC release. Was it introduced with this latest RC4?

Thanks for otherwise outstanding work guys. It just make my original investment a very sound investment.


It may not appear if you are in a scenario/saved game and haven't yet updated that scenario/saved game with the latest database (from the Editor). Otherwise, just start a blank scenario and then hit the database--you'll then see the new entries.

I've mistakenly missed a new unit because I didn't do the above as well. :/


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Correct, if the scenario has not been rebuilt, its using an old version of the db, most likely.



Okay, So I just updated the Kuril Islands and saved it. Do I need to do every scenario or do they come updated with each scenario bundle released? I often find myself modding may of the scenarios to suit some needs to alter an event or trigger rather than make mine from scratch.

Thanks for all the quick replies.



mikmykWS -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 10:24:38 AM)

Yeah the game won't auto update your scenarios on its own although we do ship updated versions with game updates.

Mike



mikmykWS -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 10:26:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caron

I think the big issue is...we can't target "Single unit Airfield" too...that's a major drawback. Still...despite the fact that I agrre that using a tomahawk to dig a hole in the ground is not a clever solution, on the other hand...using some of em to shut down an air force, even for just some hours, could be a better and cheaper option instead of sending in a whole manned strike force.



These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike



strykerpsg -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 10:42:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah the game won't auto update your scenarios on its own although we do ship updated versions with game updates.

Mike


Just for clarification of your statement, when the next official update is released, not the release candidate, all scenarios will be automatically updated to latest DB?

Thanks for the quick reply Mike.



caron -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 11:18:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

These were never designed to be targets but guess people are using them that way. We'll look at the implications of enabling.

Thanks

Mike



I see the point and I agree. More often than not I rebuild the scenario every time I see a Single Unit Airfield...but this kinda spoiler it. Is there a way to make a weapon "selective" in the damages it causes? I mean...Is there a way to make a tomahawk hit the unit and only inflicts damage points to, say, hangars, bunkers, ammo shelters and not runways? Cause...you know...you could have a Burke in the area and not a JDAM equipped aircraft in range. Or you may need the aircraft to sead the path of the tomahawk strike.
Just wondering here...cause I donět like the "go with tomahawk for everything" way...but still need em for that kind of work.

btw...Keep Up with the great job you all are doing...love this game.



ComDev -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 12:35:56 PM)

As for 'Single-Unit Airfields', these lack proper modelling of sub-component damage and should not be used for airfelds that may come under attack [8D] The purpose of these units is to increase game speed by skipping the intra-base infrastructure and logics in ASW scens or one-sided strike scens, etc.

So if we were to change anything it would be to make Single-Unit airfields not attackable at all.



Vici Supreme -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 12:41:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Yeah we changed the anti-runway capabilities to reflect the way these weapons are used in real life. Using a $1 million weapon to punch a single hole in a runway is a bit weird.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?

If I can cut in at this point.

I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages...

Just my 2 cents.



deepdive -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 1:12:51 PM)

quote:

If I can cut in at this point. I fully agree with your view. But I also think that those decisions should be up to the player. I still like to use Tomawhawks on single-unit airfields, pretending these are targeting airport infrastructures such as towers, hangars, fuel storages... Just my 2 cents.





1+



tmammela -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 1:47:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: deepdive

1+


2+

Player should do the decisions, whether it is a weird one or not. Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.



p1t1o -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 1:55:15 PM)

I'm of the opinion that if a tomahawk would not be used IRL to target runways, either because they are best saved for more appropriate target, or because of lacklustre performance vs. a runway, then we shouldn't be able to either. Note that after a massive volley of cruise missiles opened desert storm, aircraft were still used to strike runways.

I'd also prefer single-unit airfields to be un-attackable, I see them as placeholders for when a planner needs some aircraft for whatever reason and neutering the airbase is not within scope of the mission, saving on unit count. Whenever I see one I think, right, best not waste any precious tomahawks on that target then.

To prevent them from being arbitrarily used as targets by designers and causing awkward "should-I-shouldn't-I" moments for the player, I think their purpose as "withholds" should be strengthened.

**edit**


quote:

ORIGINAL: tmammela
Game engine then calculates, what results from that decision.



Fair point, but in my head the game should "calculate" my advisors having conniptions and my military career put in jeopardy for poor use of tactical assets and financial capital! I assumes thats what crashes-to-desktops are, not bugs, its just me being fired by the game.



thewood1 -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 1:55:54 PM)

While true, even theater commanders can have weapon usage restrictions placed on them. And cost is a factor sometimes. Not arguing against, just pointing it out.



Vici Supreme -> RE: COMMAND v1.08 RELEASE CANDIDATE THREAD (6/16/2015 2:28:25 PM)

The problem with single-unit airfields as non-attackable placeholders only is, that you instantly know if your own airfield might be the target of a surprise attack. I can imagine that some of you might think now: "Well, use multi-unit builds then...". I say this. I'm working on a massive scenario involving North Korea and basically all its neighbours+US. AU count was at 6000 with all the DPRK airfields being multi-unit airfields. I managed to get the AU count down to 3000 by only replacing those airfields with single-unit bases. In this case, it was a necessary sacrifice since all of those airfields are intended to be targeted.

At least, that's the way I'm looking at this.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625