RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

AMP - Time-on-target automatic strike generator UI

28% (145)

AMP - Continuous coverage planner

1% (7)

Scriptless downed/stranded crew (for CSAR)

2% (13)

Local weather fronts

9% (48)

Scriptless intermittent sensor settings

1% (9)

Custom draw on map

2% (12)

WEGO MP

4% (21)

Real-time MP

11% (56)

Scriptless carry-over of units between scenarios

3% (19)

Ground operations: Make units recognize and use roads

5% (28)

AMP - Ability to edit flightplans prior to takeoff

3% (19)

Implements full unit edit capability (loadouts, calcs) into ScenEdit

6% (35)

Warning shots

1% (9)

Scriptless boarding actions

0% (3)

Integrated speech-to-text (SeaHag-style)

2% (11)

Tacview - AAR mode

4% (22)

Chemical & Biological weapon effects

1% (10)

Display real-time sonar/self-noise data

0% (4)

Make A2A-refueling options a doctrine setting

0% (2)

Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm

0% (2)

Unit "Scoreboard"

0% (4)

"Search" tool for the cargo list

0% (1)

Weather/Day-night affects air sorties

1% (8)

Allow Lua scripting on Losses/Expenditures (for player-tailored stats)

0% (1)

Enable borders/coastlines at close-in zoom

2% (12)

Hotkeys for built-in map layers

0% (1)

Total Votes : 502

(last vote on : 2/22/2022 7:27:32 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

ETF -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/26/2021 6:45:28 PM)
Real-Time MP - as was hinted at haha just before release :)

TitaniumTrout -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/26/2021 9:01:46 PM)
Could a new tab be added for contents of a group? For example if I have a hostile airfield I can either switch to Unit Mode and hover over each icon, or create a strike mission and look at the units on the list and that's about it. Ideally it would be : [image]https://i.imgur.com/ktQw7uT.png[/image] Then when you click on the Grouped Unit tab you would see all of the units contained. This is particularly useful to see if a structure has been destroyed. It would be extra-ideal to have the damage, fire, or flood state, called out here as well.

p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 1:10:55 AM)
This is a bit random, but a dropdown with the last three searched for things on most search boxes (add-unit search, database search, magazine search etc.) would be a really nice quality-of-life upgrade. Thanks, P

cmanouser1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 8:55:19 AM)
Two quality-of-life ideas for submarines: in Options->Message Log, we already have "New Weapon contact". Add "New Torpedo contact". This would help in combined forces scenarios where you don't care much about much weapons except for torpedoes that you always care about for submarines, in Throttle & Altitude, add a new Depth Preset: in-layer, which would be the middle of the layer (the submarine would adjust automatically to layer changes too).

Blast33 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 7:00:04 PM)
When we use satellites in a scenario, the intel they provide is being fed directly to the current situation.. I can imagine that for example an imagery sat has to pass over one of its download ground stations, it hast to be sent to a analysis center. Someone has to study it and the conclusions has to be written down on the imagery and sent to CENTCOM, EUCOM or for Russia or the UK to at least the commander who needs it. This takes time. And this info is not available in real-time as it is now in the game. Now the interesting part: how much time is needed for this circle to go round? Two hours? One hour? 30 minutes? Who can give a suggestion?

Parel803 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 8:00:50 PM)
Intresting Question. And not only for imagery I guess. Not sure but feels like a tricky path for the game. Very true for Sats but in the game your' either in the net or your not. I don't have a hard answer on times, guess it depends. But there are many more sits where you don't have all the info from your's partners due to varies reasons. In real life that is. with regards Gert-Jan

Gunner98 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 9:22:39 PM)
A similar point can be made about reconnaissance aircraft in a pre-digital age. Some even today. Not sure on processing time but there is also the question of accessibility - could a commander in the tactical world physically get the material? The further back in time you go the less likely that is.

thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (2/28/2021 10:07:02 PM)
There have been pushes through the years ever since CMNAO/CMO was released about access and use of strategic-level/operational-level recon assets and information. I have built scenarios over the years for myself that replicate the information loop on recon assets. Mostly for air recon before the digital network age. Its a combination of missions, events, comms, lua, and even dynamic sides. The easiest one is keeping a recon unit out of comms until it returns to base. Then you switch comms back on. All of the recon units contacts are now part of the player's information network. Before the comms function was releases, I used side-switching with events to do it. Its pretty easy to do either way. But this is a scenario designers question. Its not really a question for someone who just plays. edit: btw, you can use similar processes for satellites. Until the players/designers exhaust the capabilities of the current game to do stuff like this, I would prefer the devs spend their time on other things.

Gunner98 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/1/2021 8:35:58 AM)
Yeah that would work.

p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/1/2021 7:26:52 PM)
quote: I would prefer the devs spend their time on other things. Never dont make a suggestion though. The devs decide what to spend their time on, as you or anyone would in their position - this thread isnt actually binding. You cant accidentally vote something up too much, because then it might actually be worth doing. If you dont want the devs to spend time on something, dont suggest it. If you do, or you want the devs to be the ones to choose, then do. Sorry, pet peeve, I respectfully leave this as personal opinion to be taken or left at anyone's discretion.

thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/1/2021 7:42:21 PM)
I am allowed a vote also. Especially when the asked for feature is completely doable with existing functions. I just want to make sure everyone knows you can do this. If you put a request in for something that already exists, someone should point that out.

p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/6/2021 2:54:47 AM)
Small quality-of-life suggestion: add "Go to unit in OoB" to right-click menu. It is already possible to find a unit in the OoB with existing functions of course, but this would save some time in certain repetitive operations and IMO would make life easier sometimes. Thanks, P

sparky577 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/21/2021 8:49:04 PM)
Real Time Multiplayer would be AMAZING. Even if limited to just 2 players. Regional weather settings that could change with time would be awesome! Or even a "download live weather" feature that took a snapshot from a database somewhere and did an approximation of weather around the globe. A toggle for "weather overlay" might be cool. Request: Could we get a hypothetical Chinese H-20 stealth bomber? As always, absolutely LOVE this program. Thanks again to everyone on the team! [:D]

TitaniumTrout -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (3/22/2021 1:38:00 PM)
Some QoL improvement requests. First is the ability to highlight units from the target list. Some scenario designers name individual units, while others do not. This can make it tricky when one wants to remove a particular unit from the strike. For Example : [image]https://i.imgur.com/JrJvPtu.png[/image] Adding something like the "Highlight and Center" button as in the Reference Point Selector from the Patrol Mission interface would be excellent. [image]https://i.imgur.com/FIHkZz1.png[/image] Second one, piers have the effective area highlighted to show the applicable area. When you change the rotation of the facility it is very easy to visualize. Could the same be done for runways? [image]https://i.imgur.com/1g8h4Ro.png[/image] When either striking runways or placing them, this would be nice to get an easier visual of where to send the strikers. [image]https://i.imgur.com/Nqyd5nV.png[/image] It does display the degree, but a visual would be helpful.

p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/15/2021 10:12:16 PM)
Request ability to control height and speed of refuel operations. At the moment it seems set to loiter and 36kft by default, which can waste fuel on long distance refuels, especially when the receiver will be forced below the 36kft cutoff to the next higher fuel consumption level. Thanks, P edit Have figured out you can alter altitude, and Im guessing refueling at loiter is intentional, perhaps finding the basket at Mach 0.8 isnt so desirable.

guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/23/2021 2:32:45 PM)
Request: When a Strike mission is created in the mission editor and aircraft assigned, the legs and draggable waypoints be immediately available even if the mission is tasked to happen later. This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions.

eleos -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/23/2021 2:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guanotwozero Request: When a Strike mission is created in the mission editor and aircraft assigned, the legs and draggable waypoints be immediately available even if the mission is tasked to happen later. This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions. quote: This would be useful for planning it out, e.g. entering distance/airspeed data in a spreadsheet to get the timing right, particularly if it's to be synchronised with other missions. Be patient [;)][;)][;)]

guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/23/2021 2:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eleos Be patient [;)][;)][;)] Ah, OK! [:)][:)][:)]

Blast33 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/24/2021 11:11:51 AM)
Bullseye developpers, bullseye![&o]

p1t1o -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (4/26/2021 8:40:42 PM)
Suggestion - embed trigger-event functionality from the event handling system into the mission editor, so that mission-active and mission-inactive triggers can be applied easily on a per-mission basis, without needing a seperate event to be created to either/both activate and/or deactivate a mission. Perhaps a seperate tab (where for example, the tabs for strike aircraft and escorts would be) with an "create trigger" button for ON trigger and OFF trigger, which accesses the usual trigger-creation wizard - or allow you to choose an already created trigger. This would be mainly useful in creating enemy AI. All of this is already possible of course, but this may save many steps in controlling missions more finely and reduce clutter in the event handling system allowing easier management. edit Suggestion - add "AND/OR" toggle to event trigger selection box, ie: "OR" would equal current mechanism, any selected trigger fired, triggers the action. "AND" would require all selected triggers to have fired before the action is triggered. This would remove the need to create sides and associated score events in the scenario to act as "counters" in many situations, and simplifies the event structure for other types of activity, removing the need for conditions in many cases. edit 05/05/2021 Small QoL suggestion - default the Air Ops screen to all wings collapsed on opening a new window, rather than the topmost wing expanded. Thanks, P

Eggstor -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/11/2021 4:08:15 PM)
Suggestion - In campaign mode, when advancing from one scenario to another, also add a "End Checkpoint" save of the previous scenario so that, if the succeeding scenario is updated (as a couple of Kashmir Fire scenarios were in a hotfix), one doesn't have to either remember to save before advancing or play through the entirety of the previous scenario to play an updated scenario in campaign mode. Edit - Either that or change the "checkpoint" system to load the scenario file instead of a save file.

morphin -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/23/2021 3:25:43 AM)
Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour. Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission.

SkyhawkSG1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/23/2021 9:51:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morphin Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour. Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission. So you actually want your pilots to be suicidal idiots?

SkyhawkSG1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/23/2021 9:56:58 AM)
Suggestion - Add a 'minimum altitude' setting to mission editor altitude settings area. For instance if I set a AAW patrol enagagement altitude bands to minimum 6000 feet then the AAW patrol/escort will not let itself get dragged into a dogfight below that altitude where it would most likely lose. It will maintain altitude advantage.

morphin -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/23/2021 3:42:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SkyhawkSG1 quote: ORIGINAL: morphin Suggestion: It should be possible to micromanage a unit assigned to a mission. Current behaviour is if a unit is assigned to mission and it is engaged in a fight the computer overrides the manually set course, speed and altitude. So it is actually not possible to micromanage a unit that is assigned to a mission in a fight. Even the Flag "automatic evasion" set to no and "ignore plotted course" to No doesn't change this behaviour. Thank you very much for consider changing this behaviour. It would allow to micromanage a unit while fighting and then after the fight the unit can continue the mission. So you actually want your pilots to be suicidal idiots? ??? I don't unterstand, but if you don't micromanage the current code is that if you set speed to afterburner, altitude to minimum and course to hide behind a mountain then the AI automatic set altitude to 36000, speed to cruise and direction against incoming missile so for me that is a sucidal reaction of the AI (If it is assigned to a mission). Much better to micrmanage the AC, but unfortunately you can not use the big advantage of using misisons to simply routine task with micromanage fights. You have to unassign for fighting.... That is a real drackback for this people who would like to micromanage the fights

cdnice -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (5/26/2021 3:57:40 AM)
Quality of life suggestion. Ability to make the cone for ports smaller to better fit bases located on rivers inland from shore, could also be used to simulate rivers or canals where the real altitude above sea level does not allow passage.

BDukes -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/5/2021 5:19:51 PM)
It would be nice if when you select a unit in the import unit dialog, it would appear ghosted on the map. The idea is it would save you adding all units and going through deletion steps in the case that you didn't really know the position of all units or bases for a scenario and didn't need them all. Example: I am building a Poland scenario and don't really know airbase positions from memory. I add them all and then have to go through delete the bases I don't need. This is definitely a nice to have kind of request. Just saves editors a few steps. Mike

BDukes -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/5/2021 5:28:07 PM)
It would be great if there was a UI method to ready aircraft before the scenario start, so they are ready at scenario start. The idea is that players can set their initial loadouts without the loadout time penalty under the assumption that they made this decision before the scenario start. This could be done in scenario edit since day one and lua since the functions became available, but it's a common enough thing to maybe ask for a UI implementation. Mike

KnightHawk75 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/5/2021 9:16:23 PM)
LUA: ScenEdit_GetEMCON() to similarly match ScenEdit_SetEMCON(); Suggest returning a table of: If not operating on a unit (ie a group,mission,side): {OECM='Active'\|'Passive',Radar='Active'\|'Passive',Sonar='Active'\|'Passive'} If unit then: {OECM='Active'\|'Passive',Radar='Active'\|'Passive',Sonar='Active'\|'Passive',obeyEMCON=true\|false} At present one can not query the current state of EMCON on a unit or upper level doctrine (outside of obeyEMCON at the unit leve), one can set it of course but not get the state before changes are made, which prevents restoration of a prior state at a later time, or knowing if a change is even necessary.

stww2 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (6/5/2021 11:53:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BDukes It would be great if there was a UI method to ready aircraft before the scenario start, so they are ready at scenario start. The idea is that players can set their initial loadouts without the loadout time penalty under the assumption that they made this decision before the scenario start. This could be done in scenario edit since day one and lua since the functions became available, but it's a common enough thing to maybe ask for a UI implementation. Mike I second this. I've seen a couple scenarios that build in extra time to allow the player to choose the loadouts, and while it's a solution that is probably "good enough," it's a tad bit suboptimal.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

0.8613281