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

Scar79 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/5/2019 9:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dimitris quote: ORIGINAL: Scar79 Didn't get any answer to my question. May be the reason is in my horrible English skill.) Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so. Your request is effectively item #1 on the poll list. Ah, thank you very much, Dimitris, for your answer! This is really great news that making my excitement even stronger...while it seemed couldn't be stronger than it already is!

Primarchx -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/5/2019 4:57:34 PM)
It's not up there but more sonar data would be nice and make ASW ops more engaging. Realtime info about platform self-noise, contact sound strength and sensor acuity at current speed would all be very useful in prosecuting sonar targets.

guanotwozero -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/6/2019 10:00:59 PM)
Well, I went for AMP-ToT. If this becomes a prospect, I'd suggest having its own forum section so we can throw in ideas about what it might do in more detail. That way we might narrow it down to under 50 separate designs!

Scorpion86 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/9/2019 4:19:14 PM)
Well, I'm just gonna copy-paste some of my suggestions from a previous thread: 1 - A way of tweaking an aircraft's refuelling logic I can't count the number of times I was in the middle of a strike when the attacking aircraft decided to go refuel all on it's own and fly 300 miles to the nearest tanker. And when I stopped it manually, it would go back to refuelling. Today, when I want to control a single aircraft's refuelling logic, all you have is the "allow refuelling/do not refuel" drop down menu. But when you have a mission, you can tell the aircraft on patrol to only refuel from tankers of mission X, to only refuel if there's a tanker within Y miles, or to only refuel when you're down to W% of fuel. That would be nice to have for aircraft not assigned to a mission as well. Basicly I want the options from the menu in the attached picture in the Doctrine options, with the "search for tanker" option expressed in "BINGO + percentage fuel remaining" instead of just "percent fuel remaining". 2 - Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm increments When I was play-testing my latest scenario, For The Honour Of The Republic (coughshameless self-promotioncough), I had Portuguese AF A-7Ps armed with AIM-9L-1 missiles going against Yak-38M Forgers armed with R-60M Aphids. The AIM-9L-1 has a 10nm range, but the WRA only allows me to set the automatic firing range between the full 10nm or 5nm, nothing else. If I fired the AIM-9s at 10nm, the Forgers would shake them, if I fired them at 5nm, my fighters would be close enough to be shot at by the Aphids. If I could set the auto-fire distance to 75% of the range, that would be ideal. Having the ranges of weapons in the WRA menu set in 5nm increments may be more intuitive, but it penalises scenarios using shorter-ranged weapons, like mid-to-late cold war fighter duels. Another option is a sliding scale: increments of 2nm for ranges from 0 to 20nm, increments of 5nm for ranges from 20 to 100nm, and of 10nm for ranges >100nm. 3 - Unit "Scoreboard" This is the least serious request of the three, but what the hell, dreaming pays no tax, so here we go: It would be neat to have some sort of scoreboard during the mission to see which unit behaved better during the scenario. Things like, best ace, best ground attacker, unit that suppressed more SAM sites, etc, etc... And I add another thing I thought of since: 4 - More scriptless trigger/action options I came upon this when designing my own scenario. A very simple thing I wanted to do in my scenario was changing a side's EMCON. But sadly I couldn't do that without LUA. The "change EMCON" action was literally a one-line script. I know this may appear deceptively simple for a layman, but it would make mission-making simpler for people without coding knowledge. [image]local://upfiles/56214/D3A7754445064AC88BFFA46BFFC43248.jpg[/image]

c3k -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/11/2019 1:42:12 PM)
TacView I've never used it, but it looks like a HUGE improvement/benefit to CMO, bringing the player into the furball...if they so desire. I understand it is set up no fog-of-war right now. I'd like to see three layers of "knowledge": 1. God's Eye: as it is now, with total knowledge of every unit. 2. Player's View: make it so only units the player knows about are in view. 3. Unit View: only what THAT unit sees is in view. By "see", "view", or "knowledge", I'm talking about whatever level of observation is available. The difference is this: Imagine friendly units A, B, and C fighting enemy units W, X, Y, and Z. Each unit only observes (data link, ESM, radar, IR, eyeball, whatever) one unit; A = X, B = Y, and C = Z. W is an enemy unit thus far unobservered. In God's Eye, the player will see all seven. In Player's View, the player will see A, B, C, X, Y, and Z. In Unit View, the player sees NOTHING until he selects a unit. If he selects unit A, the only enemy he will see is X. If B, then Y. Etc. FWIW.

burning_phoneix -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/15/2019 5:41:27 AM)
How can you change Tacview's parameters? Isn't it a different product?

Grazyn -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/15/2019 11:23:55 AM)
I'd really love to have a search tool for the cargo list.

sluggy2010 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 2:40:50 AM)
With regards to the fog-of-war for the TACVIEW export ( which I did vote for ) can we make it an option not just "On" as there are still uses where leaving it in a God's eye view are still useful as mentioned below (above? ) in someone else's post..

Majick -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 10:41:37 AM)
Hi, I've voted for FOW on TacView. Could I also suggest that it would be very nice if the Tacview colours and the CMO map icon colours were in line. Not sure if you can achieve this as it seems to me CMOs colours are correct (Blue friendly forces, red hostile etc) and maybe you can't control the colours displayed in TacView. But it's quite offputting to see enemy forces displayed as friendly on TacView and vice versa :)

Duck Doc -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 12:59:42 PM)
AMP integrating tankers would be ginormous!

jmlima -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 5:49:08 PM)
Does weather affect air operations in this version? If not, that.

LMychajluk -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 8:09:56 PM)
Ability to create a Strike Mission and add targets to it, but only have it trigger once the Target is Hostile. I'd like to be able to set up Strike Missions that will launch to attack specific enemy AEW, Radars, AAD, Ships, etc..., but only after they've been declared Hostile. As of now, the 'Auto-Launch' part works, but you can't specify targets for the mission. As of now, the 'Hostile' as a minimum is there at the top of the Dialog Box, but as soon as you add a specific target to the mission, the side becomes Hostile.

LMychajluk -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/16/2019 8:34:15 PM)
Instead of just showing the Score, how about a more detailed breakdown once the Scenario is ended? Most of the info is already in Losses/Expenditures, but maybe summarize / compare it? Something like, by unit types (5th Gen Fighters, 4th Gen Fighters, bombers, DDG, etc...): "You lost 35% less <Unit Types> vs. the Enemy", or "You lost 1 DDG vs. 3 enemy DDGs lost" You can even break down expenditure by Weapon Type - "You expended 135 BVR AA weapons vs. the enemy's 158". (Basically, one line per unit / weapon type.) Yes, it may be lopsided in some scenarios (like an Air Force vs Naval Units), but that's OK. "You expended 39 Long Range SAMS vs the enemy's 0" "You expended 0 Guided Air-To-Ground Weapons vs the enemy's 32" "You lost 0 Multi-Role Attack Aircraft vs the enemy's 5" "You lost 1 Frigate vs. the enemy's 0" It may take a minute to crunch the numbers, but it only needs to happen once at the end of the scenario. Maybe even add the ability (via LUA events?) for Scenario Authors to include their own items to the summary, like "3 out of 4 Primary Targets Destroyed", or "Significant (>80%) of enemy air losses incurred."

DONNIE67 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/17/2019 4:31:04 AM)
planes that are airborne should be added to the flight ops screen.

kosmoface -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/17/2019 8:03:18 PM)
Just voted for Fog of war in TACVIEW, because it seems like such a basic feature, that I want to see this before everything else. I mean it's strange to integrate a Tool for more immersion and at the same time it breaks the immersion, because there is no fog of war. Hmmmm... Props to the devs that we have it.

ETF -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/17/2019 11:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: britten So people care more about local weather than for multiplayer? C'mon dudes.[&:] I recognise though what kind of problems design of multiplayer mode would bring. I have a feeling Real-Time style with small scenarios would work just fine, just like in Harpoon 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTyLseW_zI4 +1 for all the people who are not on the forums to vote as it is SP only. What a great way to get so many more people interested in the genre if they could play against the best opponent in the world. That is humans' hands down. Have been wargaming on PC's since the 80's and no AI can be a proper substitute IMHO.

thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/17/2019 11:49:20 PM)
Sounds to me like the public is speaking loud and clear.

Grazyn -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 5:11:27 PM)
I really wish there was a way to disable the new feature of borders and coastlines fading out as you zoom in. Currently, the lines disappear completely at a camera altitude of 400 km, which makes it really hard to set up "border-clash" scenarios or exclusion zones, or fine-tuned navigation (since the satellite map doesn't always overlap the actual coast). I don't quite understand what prompted such a change...

ultradave -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 7:55:01 PM)
There may be a technical reason why they aren't there anymore, but would it be possible to bring back some more of the speed-up options? I find the 15 sec, 1 minute and 5 minute options really useful in submarine scenarios where movement is very slow, or where significant movement needs to happen to close range. The current flaming afterburner speed is a little drastic on my machine, and I find myself nervously ready to stop it before it gets out of hand. This is definitely a low priority request and nothing that is broken.

JOhnnyr -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 8:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ultradave There may be a technical reason why they aren't there anymore, but would it be possible to bring back some more of the speed-up options? I find the 15 sec, 1 minute and 5 minute options really useful in submarine scenarios where movement is very slow, or where significant movement needs to happen to close range. The current flaming afterburner speed is a little drastic on my machine, and I find myself nervously ready to stop it before it gets out of hand. This is definitely a low priority request and nothing that is broken. They have the buttons at the bottom of the screen to move time forward a certain amount of time....I'm still getting used to it.

Empty014 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 10:29:33 PM)
Can't believe there is still no TOT in this game as its so important for any strike. pull your fingers out

ultradave -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 11:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr quote: ORIGINAL: ultradave There may be a technical reason why they aren't there anymore, but would it be possible to bring back some more of the speed-up options? I find the 15 sec, 1 minute and 5 minute options really useful in submarine scenarios where movement is very slow, or where significant movement needs to happen to close range. The current flaming afterburner speed is a little drastic on my machine, and I find myself nervously ready to stop it before it gets out of hand. This is definitely a low priority request and nothing that is broken. They have the buttons at the bottom of the screen to move time forward a certain amount of time....I'm still getting used to it. I know about them, thanks. What I'd like is to watch the sim operate at the larger time compression speed.

thewood1 -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 11:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Empty014 Can't believe there is still no TOT in this game as its so important for any strike. pull your fingers out I am sure are panicked now. They'll get right on it.

JOhnnyr -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/18/2019 11:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ultradave quote: ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr quote: ORIGINAL: ultradave There may be a technical reason why they aren't there anymore, but would it be possible to bring back some more of the speed-up options? I find the 15 sec, 1 minute and 5 minute options really useful in submarine scenarios where movement is very slow, or where significant movement needs to happen to close range. The current flaming afterburner speed is a little drastic on my machine, and I find myself nervously ready to stop it before it gets out of hand. This is definitely a low priority request and nothing that is broken. They have the buttons at the bottom of the screen to move time forward a certain amount of time....I'm still getting used to it. I know about them, thanks. What I'd like is to watch the sim operate at the larger time compression speed. I actually share your request, but when I asked (on steam) they said the buttons on the bottom were the replacement. [:(]

magi -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/19/2019 4:13:38 PM)
I would like to see: The game speed bar and the timestamp at the top of the screen to be smaller.. they don�t need to be so big.... I would like to right click on the mouse to center the map on the cursor..... I would like to not have to display the unit picture in the unit status field� It takes up too much room.... Something is wrong with using OOB.... causing the game to crash.... I think the stylized NATO icons are just slightly plump and could be a little skinnier.... I would like a shortcut key for the LOS feature....

oomiz -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/19/2019 4:21:48 PM)
The thing I absolutely miss the most is a simple volume control. Not actually a gameplay request and probably a much smaller fix than most things on that list. But forgetting to adjust the volume mixer on mission startup and getting your ears blown off gets old really quick.

4Emprah -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/20/2019 2:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oomiz The thing I absolutely miss the most is a simple volume control. Not actually a gameplay request and probably a much smaller fix than most things on that list. But forgetting to adjust the volume mixer on mission startup and getting your ears blown off gets old really quick. +1 CMO is DEAFENING on launch for some reason, and it doesn't seem to like to remember the volume I set it to in the Windows volume mixer unlike some other programs.

boogabooga -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/20/2019 7:05:17 AM)
In Aircraft entries in the Database, I think that it would make more sense to put the hyperlinks to the weapons DB entries in with the Aircraft Stores, rather than Aircraft Loadouts. That way, when one looks through the stores and thinks "what is that one?," the hyperlink is right there, no need to comb through loadouts to try to find it again. Also, the hyperlinks are easier to click on in the stores section because there is more space between them. The CMNAO way of putting them in BOTH places is fine, too.

Darren_H_slith -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/20/2019 8:52:31 PM)
I would like to request: Separate volume control for background music and voice/unit sound effects.

magi -> RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests (11/21/2019 7:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darren_H_slith I would like to request: Separate volume control for background music and voice/unit sound effects. ^^^^ +++1.....for sure...

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

0.5898438