Suggestion - single unit airport

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Suggestion - single unit airport

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 >> Suggestion - single unit airport

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 12:42:27 PM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

Please, make them vulnerable again , with runway denial weapons :D

Ok, this is not a rant.

I remember that it was some tough polemics about vulnerability of single unit
airfields because they weren't suppose to be attacked or something.. but!

I'm currently playing big scenario - CWC1 Eve of destruction , which is full with Russian single-unit airports ,
and you have lot's of Tornado's with anti-runway loadouts which just can't be used on that type of airport.

I was successful tho in flattening one and damaging few with gp bombs , lots of them.
But, now all of my anti-runway MW-1 equipped Tornado's are just sitting there eager for action, that just wouldn't happen.

What is the point making them immune to anti-runway weapons when I can obliterate them with GP munitions (mk82's,-84's) ?

Please hear me :)

Thanks

Post #: 1

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 1:03:49 PM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Single-unit based airfields are catalogued as 'Air Base', so anti-runway weapons did not recognized it.

In my opinion, airfield is a temporary unit for scenario making and quick demonstration. I recommend you to properly make a whole airport/base, and then group them together.

_____________________________

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 2

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 2:10:32 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Can you drop bombs on them? Hm they shouldn't be attackable at all...

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 3

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 4:01:20 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Single unit airbases... The gift that keeps giving....

_____________________________

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 4

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 5:34:50 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Tested it real quick and seems they are bombable again in 1.11... That was not intended...

Disabled

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 5

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 9:38:58 PM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

Noooo....

I have yet to improve skill to keep my big mouth shut!!!

...session terminated

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 6

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 10:20:13 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

The Single-Unit airfield has no damage model so it isn't able to handle damage well. No proper hangars, revetments, etc, either. Really ill suited for the job...

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 7

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 10:56:40 PM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

Ok I get that point..., just try to imagine my point of view,

Nevertheless poor unit damage modeling or whatever is problem, I find hard to coexist with beliefs that in
something so complex as strategic warfield simulation which tends to behave so close to reality as it can get,
that there is something which is indestructible, or untouchable if you want.
There is no commander in a whole world who is allowed to think that way.

OTOH, partially it is ok, if it is by mission design for something that is off-limits, the rules of the game apply.

But if it just there to minimize impact on system resources, and we can't do nothing about it, well, this is totally unreal.

So therefore I propose a compromise, give us two versions of single-unit airfield, destructible and indestructible, and name'em as such, simple as that :)

That way we will be able to overcome some resources limits and still be able to blow things up if they come our way.
I understand that this is also partially unreal because of simplified damage modelling, hell, this is a compromise. Give'em more DP's ratio.
And please make them vulnerable for anti-runway and cruise weapons.

My suggest for mission designers is that if they want something indestructible, then build just some serious defences around it, so if someone want to
risk, let'em go ahead.
Remember 1991, Desert Storm, first strikes were conducted on what strategic targets?, well, what do you know, airports, sam sites...
It is the reality of modern combat battlefield, own the skies, and deny your enemy the same.
If you can do it ok, if not, find the way.
Just few things to consider.

Thanks

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 8

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/15/2016 11:38:28 PM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

Hmm as a scen designer I actually quite like having single unit airfields. They make the scen run much faster (I actually have altered other people's scens for use on my work ultra book, and there was a huge improvement), and sometimes you just don't want an airfield to be touched for balance/gameplay reasons.

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 9

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 12:08:58 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

There performance drawback isn't as obvious as it once was. New builds have lots of stuff in it to improve performance.

We have imports for most major airbases and airport now and its only a click or two more to add them.

Use the single unit bases for units that won't be hit.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 10

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 12:45:06 AM

B52H

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline

In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 11

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 1:06:15 AM

cns180784

Posts: 447
Joined: 7/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

(in reply to B52H)

Post #: 12

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 1:13:14 AM

B52H

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cns180784

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

Yes, ground units do fire at each other. You need to set "A/G Strafing (gun)" on and weapons free on the nonplayable side for land units. Although the ground combat feature isn't that detailed as air and naval operations are, it can still serve its purpose until the devs release an update featuring a more in-depth ground combat model.

(in reply to cns180784)

Post #: 13

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 1:19:12 AM

cns180784

Posts: 447
Joined: 7/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

quote:

ORIGINAL: cns180784

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H

In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Do ground units on opposing sides in Command actually fight each other? i did manage to get a Spetznaz team to fire their MG's at an enemy infantry Plt but no hits, and the enemy just carried on like nothing was happening lol.

Yes, ground units do fire at each other. You need to set "A/G Strafing (gun)" on and weapons free on the nonplayable side for land units. Although the ground combat feature isn't that detailed as air and naval operations are, it can still serve its purpose until the devs release an update featuring a more in-depth ground combat model.

That would be awesome if they improve the ground combat, but still as long as they fight each other then theres' a need for CAS/BAI in scenarios which is important as it is a key part of air ops in conflicts and why there are first sorties like OCA and SEAD to get air superiority to make CAS/BAI possible. I have yet to come across a scenario where i've had to task a/c for CAS, can you give me some examples?

< Message edited by cns180784 -- 3/16/2016 1:21:33 AM >

(in reply to B52H)

Post #: 14

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 1:26:16 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

More detailed ground combat model on the list for one day. Still a number of things ahead of it.

Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to cns180784)

Post #: 15

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 1:32:36 AM

cns180784

Posts: 447
Joined: 7/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

More detailed ground combat model on the list for one day. Still a number of things ahead of it.

Thanks!

Mike

You're all doing a great job with the new additions/fixes and tweaks, and yea we can wait for the improved ground combat model.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 16

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 7:38:58 AM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H
I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases.

I think that's by far the best solution

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to B52H)

Post #: 17

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 9:14:35 AM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
There performance drawback isn't as obvious as it once was. New builds have lots of stuff in it to improve performance.
We have imports for most major airbases and airport now and its only a click or two more to add them.
Use the single unit bases for units that won't be hit.

Mike

Yep, true, already noticed increased performance, good work. Seriously, by the day, you guys, rock.

Might as well do what you suggest, "play" a little bit more and convert/tweak mission (as B52H also suggest) to better suit our/my need.
That also includes a little bit wet-work by scen edit , ah well, nothing comes easy. So darn true :)

Seriously, need for vulnerable single unit airbase actually came in a need to convert some scenarios to whole different story but
without too much hassle. (add new airbase, transfer squadrons, delete old one, tweak some settings...)
--which by the way could be a little simplified in the future

And to play scenario designed for one way, in a whole different style, what if "scenario". Which CMANO mostly it is, possibilities are
almost endless, even if designers choice is "It is meant to be played" , but that CMANO isn't . Right?
There is goal in mission, how to reach it is matter of, "style"? :)
I guess we'll agree all along.
Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H
In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Hehe, neverending story. But seriosly, dude, you gave nato side 4 patriots, and RedRuskies have ~40xSa-10's. Mmmm a little bit unrealistic.
Played it through carefully like a long distance chess match, 3 days, lots of casualties both sides.

That is the problem with good mission design all along, "decoration".
You must know your tools before using them, and only one way to find out how to use them, is by using them.
Nevertheless, even yet incomplete, but, good scenario, tough one, reminds on "holy grail:)" - "Red Storm Rising".
Cheers

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 18

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 10:26:32 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

About ground units, will you implement the garrison feature in the future? Making your footmobiles able to hide and attack from buildings' inside will make low-tech offenses much harder to fight back.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 3/16/2016 10:28:46 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 19

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 10:32:57 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Yeah they need to better use terrain and get benefits from digging in etc. Lots to think about.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 3/16/2016 10:33:40 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 20

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 6:43:52 PM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah they need to better use terrain and get benefits from digging in etc. Lots to think about.

Is this something you guys would be willing to think out loud about? An operational-level wargame for ground forces is something I've been keen on for a very long time. I'd like to evolve past The Operational Art of War one day, and if anyone can be a catalyst for that, it'll be you guys.

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 21

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 9:51:28 PM

Jakob Wedman

Posts: 202
Joined: 3/20/2013
Status: offline

It's not that hard to make your own "single unit airport" by adding facilities at random and group into an airport.

_____________________________

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 22

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/16/2016 11:37:12 PM

B52H

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
There performance drawback isn't as obvious as it once was. New builds have lots of stuff in it to improve performance.
We have imports for most major airbases and airport now and its only a click or two more to add them.
Use the single unit bases for units that won't be hit.

Mike

Yep, true, already noticed increased performance, good work. Seriously, by the day, you guys, rock.

Might as well do what you suggest, "play" a little bit more and convert/tweak mission (as B52H also suggest) to better suit our/my need.
That also includes a little bit wet-work by scen edit , ah well, nothing comes easy. So darn true :)

Seriously, need for vulnerable single unit airbase actually came in a need to convert some scenarios to whole different story but
without too much hassle. (add new airbase, transfer squadrons, delete old one, tweak some settings...)
--which by the way could be a little simplified in the future

And to play scenario designed for one way, in a whole different style, what if "scenario". Which CMANO mostly it is, possibilities are
almost endless, even if designers choice is "It is meant to be played" , but that CMANO isn't . Right?
There is goal in mission, how to reach it is matter of, "style"? :)
I guess we'll agree all along.
Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H
In the scenario, the air bases were made into single-units because having too many multi-unit air bases would negatively effect the game speed. I am rebuilding myu scenarios and making them into much smaller scenarios with multi-unit air bases. In the meantime, the MW-1 equipped Tornadoes will serve as "decoration." However, to solve the problem of unused Mk82 and Mk84, play the scenario in editor mode and add armored and mechanized units on both sides to simulate tank battles to provide air support.

B52H

Hehe, neverending story. But seriosly, dude, you gave nato side 4 patriots, and RedRuskies have ~40xSa-10's. Mmmm a little bit unrealistic.
Played it through carefully like a long distance chess match, 3 days, lots of casualties both sides.

That is the problem with good mission design all along, "decoration".
You must know your tools before using them, and only one way to find out how to use them, is by using them.
Nevertheless, even yet incomplete, but, good scenario, tough one, reminds on "holy grail:)" - "Red Storm Rising".
Cheers

Thanks for the feedback. On future scenarios, I will incorporate many more SAMs on the NATO side. I am still a bit of a newbie to scenario design so would you mind describing how I could make my scenario become more "complete?"

B52H

(in reply to zaytsev)

Post #: 23

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/17/2016 1:28:32 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Yeah they need to better use terrain and get benefits from digging in etc. Lots to think about.

Is this something you guys would be willing to think out loud about? An operational-level wargame for ground forces is something I've been keen on for a very long time. I'd like to evolve past The Operational Art of War one day, and if anyone can be a catalyst for that, it'll be you guys.

Yeah we'll probably do a beta announcement ahead of it but it could be a ways off.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 24

RE: Suggestion - single unit airport - 3/17/2016 2:39:38 PM

zaytsev

Posts: 99
Joined: 6/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakob Wedman

It's not that hard to make your own "single unit airport" by adding facilities at random and group into an airport.

It is not hard at all, but is also flawed attempt.
Seriously reducing airbase capabilities, bare minimum of units. eg. 1 runway, 1 taxiway, 1 runway acc.point;. definitely ends up in premature destroying it
and kicking it out of business. But it is good approach for just an airstrip. They aren't complex so much.
Otoh, I have to agree that single-units airbase are also flawed, really, as pointed by devs, bad damage modeling, and the need for them was here from start
because of performance issues, 1000+ units, but really they simulate medium complex airbase in a single unit.

But. nvm, all that again, all story short performance really increases with recent builds, so the need for that darn single-airbases is gonna be really
just for where really needed.

In a meantime, I've did similar what you've suggested, I've made my own templates of airbases different sizes, time to close that case for good :)

Cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: B52H
Thanks for the feedback. On future scenarios, I will incorporate many more SAMs on the NATO side. I am still a bit of a newbie to scenario design so would you mind describing how I could make my scenario become more "complete?"

B52H

You're welcome, I just wasn't sure was that intended, to cripple Nato side with few sam's.
Oh, And I suck at scen design too, still getting grip on lua, so cant be much of help in this I'm afraid.
Ah, "complete", well maybe poor choice of words for a non-english native, what I meant is, for a good scenario design you have to understand game/simulator mechanics
and unit behavior, and of course, limitations, so you don't end up in lots of decoration, eg. 10 squadrons of Tornado's with anti-runway weapons and no valid
targets for them, and no option of reusing them in different way cause magazines are empty. But that is just trivial. Try and error.

Real stuff comes with mission planning, event and area triggers that are a must for a good scenario story, you know, how to say surprise, sudden twist, witty things like that, but not like "out of nowhere", unrealistic.
Things that, if caught you in the "open", unprepared, makes you to smash your computer and leave it off for entire day :D .
Just be yourself.

Cheers

< Message edited by zaytsev -- 3/17/2016 3:18:41 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 25