Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
[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: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go H... - 10/14/2013 5:08:56 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Following the successful debut of the ScenEdit running poll, we are expanding the concept to "normal" gameplay feature requests.

Don't forget that when your voted request is resolved and thus disappears from the poll, you can re-cast your vote to another one.

*IMPORTANT NOTE*: If a request is voted on top it doesn't necessarily mean it will be the one that will first be resolved, as there can be a number of reasons that prevent us from addressing it at that point. It will, however, make us note it as being a highly desirable element for the users.

Added a few that have stood out to start with, feel free to suggest more.

Thanks!



_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter
Post #: 1
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 5:34:59 PM   
Meroka37

 

Posts: 770
Joined: 7/31/2009
Status: offline 		I would like to include the chance to edit waypoints (speed, altitude, depth, etc)

_____________________________

'Better honor without ships, than ships without honor"

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 2
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 6:15:23 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline 		I would nominate:

1) Add way point orders (even if just for basic F2 and EMCON functions)
2) User defined constraints on AI weapons allocations--e.g. every weapons' mount assignable as "off limits" to AI

EDIT: looks like option 1 has just been added to the poll. since it's too late for me to change my vote, please consider this as a "+1" for way point orders

< Message edited by ExMachina -- 10/14/2013 6:19:55 PM >

(in reply to Meroka37)
Post #: 3
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 6:22:10 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		I voted for "Set speed/alt per waypoint". Close seconds would be "Per-weapon manual withhold option" & "Refine air combat evasion limitations (reduced agility)"

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 4
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 7:11:33 PM   
Tomcat84

 

Posts: 1952
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		Speed alter per waypoint (plus sensor usage, and ideally also preplanned weapon/air launched decoy employment). This is similar to my scenedit poll answer because it will both improve the gameplay as a player, as well as greatly increase the abilities to create a challenging AI side as a scenario designer.

Second place is for Refine air combat evasion limitations, with agility currently being too large a factor.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 5
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 7:46:36 PM   
Blas de Lezo

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		Speed and Alt in waypoints plus ETE or ETA

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 6
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 8:09:10 PM   
ronl

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/11/2008
Status: offline 		I would highly suggest additional optional 'zoom windows' to allow multiple views of the battlefield.

RjL

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 7
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 8:27:07 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		From what I understand, doing this with Command would be extremely difficult. As someone who had to run three simultaneous, geographically separated engagements in a game last night, it would be handy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ronl

I would highly suggest additional optional 'zoom windows' to allow multiple views of the battlefield.

RjL



(in reply to ronl)
Post #: 8
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 8:33:58 PM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline 		I chose performance as I think / hope that handling of the map can be greatly improved.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 9
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 9:18:00 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline 		All of them would be great in the long term. For the short term I voted for crew abilities (and even better add in situationally changing morale as well)

My 2nd choice would be to improve the sound (not music, just CiC type radio chatter, etc)

Also (what the hell) - not listed, but I'd like to see...

spacebar to pause/unpause game - so many games do this now, I just whack the spacebar automatically when I want to pause anything!

remember the position of windows so I don't have to keep positioning them on dual monitor setup





< Message edited by Banquet -- 10/14/2013 9:20:39 PM >

(in reply to Brausepaul)
Post #: 10
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 9:33:13 PM   
ronl

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/11/2008
Status: offline 		The automatic repositioning of windows is something they are working on.... I think I read that somewhere. Can't find it now.

F12 seems fine for pause for me....

RjL

(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 11
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 9:33:50 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		I've mapped a convenient button on my game mouse for Pause.

(in reply to ronl)
Post #: 12
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/14/2013 10:28:26 PM   
Agathosdaimon


Posts: 1034
Joined: 7/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blas de Lezo

Speed and Alt in waypoints plus ETE or ETA


I think this also, so that one can better coordinate plans

(in reply to Blas de Lezo)
Post #: 13
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 3:56:56 AM   
miller7219

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline 		Set speed/altitude per way point voted for without hesitation. I would go further and add the ability to issue auto/manual attack orders, sensor setting, and ROE options by way point too. Speed/Altitude is a good start, though.

Items not on the current voting list, but I'd support if they were:

1. Addition of a mini jump map window. You can't scroll the map by using the typical mouse to the window edge, so your left with the arrow keys only to scroll or to right click the main window in the direction you'd like to go. It's unwieldy at best to get around the large map scenarios with assets spread out over 100's or 1000's of miles. Seems like having the ability to create smaller windows is not feasible due to coding limitations, so is a mini jump map possible?

2. Engress/Egress options in the mission editor or ROE. If you don't want to micro-manage then setting items such at altitude profile to and from target, engage targets of opportunity en route or on return, the ability to set multiple targets (primary, secondary, etc) and possible what (what and how much ordinance to drop on each). These are just some possibilities that come to mind. The Mission Editor and ROE options are probably a topic for a dedicated thread elsewhere. but I would definitely vote for developing a more robust Mission Editor/ROE options.

3. Add more keyboard short cuts....debatable what functions should get keyboard shortcuts.

4. Remembering of user map preferences

5. More information added in various places, like ranges added to the Aircraft and Load Out windows or sensor status added to the unit card along the right, for example. I'm sure others have more info they'd like added here and there to help the player and simplify/reduce the mouse clicks.

6. More user friendly links. For example, double click on a mount/loadout/sensor from the weapon/aircraft/load out/contact windows and it not only takes you to that unit's entry in the database, but scrolls directly to that particular mount/sensor/load out that was clicked on. Would reduce tremendously the scroll time to find necessary info! Again, I'm sure others have their own ideas here too.



(in reply to Agathosdaimon)
Post #: 14
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 10:51:39 AM   
Stevechase

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/5/2013
Status: offline 		In addition to the many great suggestions already mentioned. I would like to see icons or visual ques in the unit status pane perhaps similar to the fuel status and damage scale that is there currently, except these would be for radar (to show if it is on or off), sonar, weapons tight/free status, altitude scale, icon to show if unit is currently being jammed, or under attack, etc. Like I said doesn't have to be anything fancy just something like the current fuel and damage status visual ques.

(in reply to miller7219)
Post #: 15
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 2:03:53 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline 		This poll is getting big and the focus is getting very broad (not to mention that late additions will get less votes b/c the rest of us have already cast our vote).

Have you guys thought about moving the poll off site so that we can vote by ranking options in order of priority (to us)? I've used SurveyMonkey in the past and it is a great way to manage more complicated polls and to allow voters to rank their preferences. Also, as things are added to the poll, we can go back and alter our votes accordingly.

Just a thought, but it might deconvolute the process a bit.

(in reply to Stevechase)
Post #: 16
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 3:25:00 PM   
Stevechase

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/5/2013
Status: offline 		Ok so this is what I envision with the unit panel helpers:(If I can get it to load the image). For example if the radar is active the radar circle is "yellow' per the image and while the sonar -in this case is blank indicating that it is inactive. The weapons section shows remaining weapons (relative to beginning loadout) by range. As an added benefit it would really be nice to also be able to have the square ESM indicator clickable which would bring up a list of all the detected emissions by this unit. And for that matter have the radar and sonar icons clickable with contact information displayed. This is just a rough idea but you get the point. Sometimes the map can get busy so being able to quickly see and have all the pertinent unit info visually in front of you I think would be very helpful.
[image][/image]

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Stevechase -- 10/16/2013 9:22:25 AM >

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 17
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 6:53:09 PM   
Blas de Lezo

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		Hi!, although I have already voted, I would like to add another suggestion: the flight profiles to be followed by the AI, you know those hi-lo-hi, or lo-lo-lo that the DB depict for the different loads out.

(in reply to Stevechase)
Post #: 18
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 9:22:58 PM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline 		I'd like a hold fire on specific weapon systems on a platform. For example, I was playing a scenario where an enemy RHIB approaches my frigate. I had done a couple of manual engagements with my 76mm, but kept missing. Finally, half out of curiosity to see what the game would do, I let the ship auto target the RHIB. Three Sea Sparrows, an MU 90 torpedo and six bursts of 76mm fire later and the RHIB ceased to exist.

A bit of an overkill... it would have been nice if I could have let the 76mm or CIWS/.50 cals autotarget the RHIB, while the SAMs and torpedoes were weapons tight.

_____________________________


(in reply to Blas de Lezo)
Post #: 19
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/15/2013 10:05:57 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

I'd like a hold fire on specific weapon systems on a platform.


That's on the list already --"Per-weapon manual withhold option (no AI use)"

I'd vote for it if I hadn't already voted


< Message edited by ExMachina -- 10/15/2013 10:07:14 PM >

(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 20
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 12:02:49 AM   
hellfish6


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline 		Ah crap. My bad. I've already voted too.

_____________________________


(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 21
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 2:33:43 AM   
Casinn

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline 		D; All of the Above


(in reply to hellfish6)
Post #: 22
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 2:55:17 AM   
Mgellis


Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline 		I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repost it here because I didn't see it as an option for the poll...

Pre-set altitude options in the thrust/altitude section. Along with loiter/cruise/full/flank, could we have Very Low (100 meters), Low (500 meters), and Medium (2000 meters) as standard options for aircraft? (The default seems to be "High" already so I left that out.)

(in reply to Casinn)
Post #: 23
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 3:01:53 AM   
miller7219

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

4. Remembering of user map preferences

5. More information added in various places, like ranges added to the Aircraft and Load Out windows or sensor status added to the unit card along the right, for example. I'm sure others have more info they'd like added here and there to help the player and simplify/reduce the mouse clicks.


After playing tonight I thought of some more gameplay features:

1. Weapon arcs. You want to bring the most weapons to bear to engage incoming air threats, or in surface gunnery scenarios the most guns to bear on enemy surface threats. There's no where I can find in game to see weapon arcs. How about adding a feature to the Weapon window where when you click on a mount its arc appears on the map window (like radar arcs)?

2. Not just remember map preferences, but window positions too. It gets annoying moving the a window out of they way every time you bring it up! Would be nice is the game remembered where a window was moved by the user and brought it up in the last location.

(in reply to miller7219)
Post #: 24
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 9:32:28 AM   
Stevechase

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/5/2013
Status: offline 		Does anyone else feel there is a place for what I posted earlier (see attachment in post # 17 or below) For unit status helpers.(Dashboard).It has not been added to the list yet, so it may just be me, but I felt others might find this useful as well. Anyway I like most all the ideas I have seen so far here.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Stevechase -- 10/16/2013 10:02:57 AM >

(in reply to Blas de Lezo)
Post #: 25
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 3:54:57 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline 		FWIW, I really like your ideas. However, I'm guessing that they might present quite a large amount of game interface re-configuration(?)

(in reply to Stevechase)
Post #: 26
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 3:58:16 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		I like the weapon summary, in fact it's quite similar to our vision for that. I'm not so certain about the throttle/altitude widget.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 27
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/16/2013 8:01:55 PM   
ExMachina


Posts: 462
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline 		In case you guys missed this (from another thread)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy
Have to finish a whole bunch of high-priority database requests and also finish coding the new Speed/Altitude window and Waypoint Orders first.



(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 28
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/17/2013 9:38:04 AM   
Stevechase

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/5/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks, the throttle/altitude could be redundant/unnecessary. But I think weapons and sensors would make knowing status of units more efficient.

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 29
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 10/18/2013 9:45:11 PM   
miller7219

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline 		I already voted for speed/altitude per waypoint (hope you include sensor setting and manual attack orders to what can be ordered by way point too!). But now were getting some other really good additions to the the poll that I'd like too. I do think being able to add orders by way point is still my #1, but I'd like give my top 5:

1. Way point orders
2. Per weapon manual withhold
3. Quick jump to units/locations
4. Weapon Arcs
5. Remember size/location of windows

All of these five address UI/Player Control issues. My personal assessment of Command, at this stage of it's development, is that UI/Player Control is the root of the majority of the gripes people have about Command. The detail and modeling of naval warfare is the best ever done in my opinion, but it's weakness is the unpolished UI/Player Control. After addressing stability/running issues, UI/Player control is what I'd invest in improving/developing first.

One of the things that always hacked me off about Harpoon Commander's Edition and H3 ANW's development was that they seemed to always put too much priority on adding new features all the time instead of fixing/improving upon what was already there. I'd rather have less, but have it work correctly and efficiently. But in the end, the various incarnations bearing the Harpoon name all could claim the got bigger and grew more and more features, but none really got better in my opinion, just bigger with more things broken.

As I recall back on the Harpoon Wars that issue of improving vs. new features was one of the wedges that drove the community apart and likely one of the reasons some of the folks involved with Command's development moved to develop Command in the first place. I hope Command's development destiny stays focused on fixing/improving first, then add new stuff upon a fully developed base, and doesn't suffer the same fate as the 20+ year Harpoon saga.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here] Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.016