Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second standalone expansion

 
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 >> RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second standalone expansion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/20/2017 2:47:55 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Of course you can also make an IADS more resilient:

When Radar A is destroyed (and this one is deep in the defended zone and the only one radiating)

Radar B, EW jammer A, SAM A, B, C & D Turn ON - and hopefully they are behind the HARM shooter

(in reply to Doctorwarthog)
Post #: 61
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/20/2017 3:03:46 PM   
ColonelMolerat

 

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/23/2015
Status: offline
Gunner - now that's just CRUEL!!

Primarchx - from what I understand in that blog post is that any unit that loses comms will act as though it were on a different 'side' - it doesn't report its position (so you can only see it with radar, etc), you can't control it, and it only does what it was previously told to (eg, it will follow a mission it was given, but if it wasn't given a mission or waypoints, it will loiter uselessly).

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 62
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/20/2017 3:46:11 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColonelMolerat

Gunner - now that's just CRUEL!!

Primarchx - from what I understand in that blog post is that any unit that loses comms will act as though it were on a different 'side' - it doesn't report its position (so you can only see it with radar, etc), you can't control it, and it only does what it was previously told to (eg, it will follow a mission it was given, but if it wasn't given a mission or waypoints, it will loiter uselessly).


Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Looks like you as a player can suffer a complete soft kill if your comms go out. I assume units will continue missions (if assigned) and those under manual control will just continue on current course, speed and EMCON. There should be a standing order method that allows you to give an out-of-comms SOP to a unit/group (RTB, Join Mission X, etc).

(in reply to ColonelMolerat)
Post #: 63
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/21/2017 3:46:07 PM   
ParachuteProne

 

Posts: 207
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline
Since cargo will allow us to transport supply trucks listed under Generic forces.
Will/can these units be used to resupply/arm ground forces ?

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 64
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/21/2017 3:47:23 PM   
ParachuteProne

 

Posts: 207
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline
Since cargo will allow us to transport supply trucks listed under Generic forces.
Will/can these units be used to resupply/arm ground forces ?

Sorry double post - don't know how to delete so if a Mod can get rid of it thanks


< Message edited by ParachuteProne -- 4/21/2017 3:49:23 PM >

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 65
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/30/2017 8:53:48 PM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
How will comms loss be affected for submarines, which typically will go deep when transiting to a patrol area? Will they go back to comms depth every so often? Even if they have the doctrine enabled to investigate a contact, I would think they would want to communicate that contact before proceeding (in case they are sunk). What about Patrol aricraft, they should periodically report in if they determine there is an area in which comms are jammed. This is a great and bold feature, I just see lots of problems with units going off the grid and dying like fools.

(in reply to ParachuteProne)
Post #: 66
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 4/30/2017 11:09:38 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan109
How will comms loss be affected for submarines, which typically will go deep when transiting to a patrol area?

Lua scripting.

quote:


Will they go back to comms depth every so often? Even if they have the doctrine enabled to investigate a contact, I would think they would want to communicate that contact before proceeding (in case they are sunk).

Up to the scenario designer.

quote:


What about Patrol aircraft, they should periodically report in if they determine there is an area in which comms are jammed.

Again, it's up to the scen designer to dictate that behavior.

quote:


This is a great and bold feature, I just see lots of problems with units going off the grid and dying like fools.

Then it's a good thing we made it an optional feature, yes?

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 5/6/2017 5:01:30 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 67
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/5/2017 10:45:15 PM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
You are answering in terms of the enemy AI, but I am interested from terms of the human player. Will there be additional doctrines that will be available for the player to define behavior when comms go out?

Let's take the submarine as a simple example. I set the course, in a simple one direction vector. I then manually tell the sub to go to max depth. At some point during the decent, the sub loses comms. So what happens? The sub continues to dive, going to that single way point I described, and just sits at the bottom of the ocean until the end of the scenario? Will I be forced to make an ascent back to comms way point every single time I move the sub deep??

Ok, so now let's take the ASu Naval Patrol. Currently, you can set the transit, Station, and attack depth. If I set all of them below comms depth, is the sub basically gone from my command forever, albeit continuing its mission for the rest of the game?

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 68
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/5/2017 11:50:44 PM   
CCIP-subsim


Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:


Let's take the submarine as a simple example. I set the course, in a simple one direction vector. I then manually tell the sub to go to max depth. At some point during the decent, the sub loses comms. So what happens? The sub continues to dive, going to that single way point I described, and just sits at the bottom of the ocean until the end of the scenario? Will I be forced to make an ascent back to comms way point every single time I move the sub deep??



As Sunburn said, this is entirely up to the scenario designer. There are no preset conditions for out-of-contact units, except (as I understand it) damage that knocks out all of the unit's comms equipment - which for a submarine or ship is almost impossible (that is, you're far more likely to have the unit destroyed outright than have it lose all its comms systems first).

It is impossible for the sub to continue diving - units in CMANO will never exceed their altitude limits.

Everything else is up to how the scenario designers use the game's logic. Yes, a scenario designer can (in theory) do something silly and make a unit go out of contact, hide, and never return - but that's something they'd almost have to try to do on purpose. The default behaviour for a unit out of contact, as the description on the page says, is to continue with its current orders and/or mission. However, just like the unit can go out of contact based on parameters defined by a scenario creator - the scenario creator can also tell the unit what to do if it goes out of contact. The unit could, for example, be automatically told to change its depth, speed, etc. It can be set to automatically set course for base when losing contact. It could be automatically be assigned to a new mission; it can even be programmed to go silent and make a "check in" at either a pre-defined time, or once it reaches a specific area. It can be made to launch weapons and make all sorts of noise to draw attention. It can even be renamed "CRAZY IVAN", made to spawn a whale every 90 seconds, and then detonate in a 25mT nuclear blast after the 50th whale

It's all literally up to the scenario designer. If the scenario designer knows what they're doing, it won't be difficult for them to predict and program the correct reaction for a unit going OOC, as the situation requires

(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 69
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/7/2017 7:29:38 PM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline
Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player. So I take that the comms breaking therefore can't be used with older scenarios (including ones created by the devs) unless the scenario designer specifically coded it to handle this. That's a shame, I would fully expect a few doctrine options for a unit. Example, for a sub, to come back to comms depth every 2 hours. Things with reasonable defaults that are conservative so units are not lost foolishly. Yeah, now I see why there is an option to enable/disable this feature.

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)
Post #: 70
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/7/2017 8:00:06 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dan109

Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player. So I take that the comms breaking therefore can't be used with older scenarios (including ones created by the devs) unless the scenario designer specifically coded it to handle this. That's a shame, I would fully expect a few doctrine options for a unit. Example, for a sub, to come back to comms depth every 2 hours. Things with reasonable defaults that are conservative so units are not lost foolishly. Yeah, now I see why there is an option to enable/disable this feature.


To be fair your opinion may benefit from seeing what it does prior to passing judgement on its value. I find it really useful for modeling some cyber warfare stuff to dropping an AAA gun off an air defense network it may not have access to. In terms of behaviors the off network units follow their mission logic and existing ROE. They'll defend themselves etc with the constraint of not seeing what the rest see. If you're worried about ROE then set them up prior too if you expect to be dropped off the net add some lua to give the off network units some choices you would think they have.

Thanks

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 5/7/2017 8:02:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 71
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/7/2017 9:59:43 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 589
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Mike, will some instructions on how to have subs communicate every so often (in case the scenario designers forgets) be available for the average player
who is not familiar with LUA?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 72
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/8/2017 7:07:49 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Intermittent sub comms wasn't really part of the design spec but definitely doable. Lua is probably the easiest path for this and it should only be a couple lines. If the guys added anything UI at this point it will be an on and off switch. If after you see the feature and the lua and you still think it needs to be there please do add a request.

Thanks

Mike


_____________________________


(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 73
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/8/2017 8:11:10 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan109
Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player.


You may want to re-phrase that.

There is a whole paragraph here ("...and Effects") explaining what happens when a unit goes off-grid and also what happens when the unit re-joins its parent side's comms network, including the very complex process of merging its private contact information. This is the mechanics side.

Now on the tactical/operational AI side, what you are asking about is that units should have built-in AI behaviors for how to operate in the absence of comms (e.g. your submarine example). What you are sidestepping is that this is not a simulation of a specific conflict in a specific place and time. What works for Falklands-82 doesn't work either for Desert Storm-91 or for Yom Kippur-73. Hell, even at the very same conflict different sides (even close allies) have different SOPs for dealing with such contingencies. Could we have coded built-in behaviors that would work for side-X at conflict-Y ? Sure, but they'd more or less break down for anyone else, anytime else. The much more flexible alternative? Give the scenario author the platform and the tools to tailor the behaviors he has in mind for the scenario he wants to put together.

Note that we did implement sanity checks for the AI so that units that suddenly become isolated don't start shooting at everything in sight. These are common-sense behaviors that make sense for almost every such circumstance. But dictating how often the sub will come up to antenna depth to update? You'll have to write that.

Thanks.

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 5/8/2017 8:26:04 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 74
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/8/2017 8:55:23 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 589
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Ok, but may I suggest a default period of 2 hours for a sub to rise to communications depth if it submerges and is out of contact; in case the scenario designer does not add in some communications time.
If subs lose contact when they submerge below a certain depth, then a player of many older scenarios are going to lose contact with their subs without some default; unless the sub is told never to submerge below its communications depth.

OTOH, you might want to post simple instructions on how to write a LUA for such doctrine, so the player can add it in older scenarios.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 75
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/8/2017 9:08:36 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Sure don't mind helping you out if you want to do this.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 76
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/8/2017 11:44:31 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline
maybe this is a stupid request, but could we get a "flag" flag...?

that is to say, so that you can set where the player physically is?

so for a sub, you could set the "flag" flag on the sub, and every time it submerges you lose contact with everything, or you could set the flag flag on another thing and you would lose contact with the sub every time it drops below antenna depth?

i mean..

am i thinking about this in the wrong way?

i suppose it depends on how deep you're going to go, but i think it might be cool to have actual datalinking, that is carrier ---> AEW/relay AC ---> fighter: if flag is on the carrier and the carrier's comms stuff is damaged, you lose track of everything; if the fighter's is damaged you maintain contact with the AEW etc.

is this sort of thing on the table?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 77
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/9/2017 3:50:07 AM   
Dan109

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan109
Sounds like a pretty hollow feature, if the scenario developer has to do 100% of the logic behind what happens when a unit goes out of comms, including units for the human player.


You may want to re-phrase that.

There is a whole paragraph here ("...and Effects") explaining what happens when a unit goes off-grid and also what happens when the unit re-joins its parent side's comms network, including the very complex process of merging its private contact information. This is the mechanics side.



Sure, I'll rephrase it, as I had already read the feature description you described. This is an incomplete feature from the human player's point of view. The human is supposed to be in "command", and that includes being able to give specific guidelines to units who lose communications with HQ. The feature is missing the most trivial type of "behavior" change of losing comms, such as trying to re-establish communications if it is the case of aircraft being jammed or depth too deep for a sub. The only option I have as a player it would seem to make manual way points for all of these missions. On the sub side, have them rise to a certain depth (subs for a long time haven't had to rise to antenna depth, they have VLF satellite communications, but still it works only at a certain depth) every X hours or Y Nm. On the aircraft side, I would have to create loops so they roll back to more friendly airspace every so often. What an arse pain.

Now from the scenario developer side, it sounds like all contingencies can accounted for with a good design. This is great if you are making a scenario for the AI to play itself like those using the professional edition, or if you want to play your own created scenario. But if I play someone else's scenario and enable this feature, 1) they must code in specific behavior for this feature, else it will have undesired consequences 2) I have to play by the scenario designer's communication loss doctrine.

Issue #1 tells me that many scenarios will be unplayable with this feature, waiting for the scenario designer to get around to adding in specific behavior when comms goes out. But every scenario will have different behaviors due to different designers. Will the scenarios provided with this update have pre-built behavior? What about the original scenarios and Northern Inferno scenarios? Will the developers go back to add LUA scripts for these scenarios? Maybe, maybe not.

This brings me to issue #2, having to use the scenario developer's doctrines. The game is about choices, and there is no choice for this feature, besides enabling it or disabling it (and if I decide to disable it for all scenarios, one less reason to buy the expansion). I'll have to figure out if the scenario has been updated to a) support the feature in anyway b) if I agree with their approach. Based on that I will decide to enable or disable the feature. What I have loved about CMANO are the choices given in the doctrines section. Sure, I have been frustrated with my unit's behavior while I continue to learn the game, but in many cases discovered it was a doctrine choice issue. Now maybe 6 months from now, you can look at all of the scenario developers' implementations of lack of comms behavior. I'm sure for each mission type, and the three arch-types of units, there will be a handful of good ides. Eventually, I would expect the devs to implement these choices for the human player, in the doctrines window.

I'm just surprised that some basic choices were not given with the initial release of this feature.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 78
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/9/2017 5:23:27 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Thank you for your feedback.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dan109)
Post #: 79
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/9/2017 11:40:32 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Yeah thanks man. Great feedback.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 80
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/9/2017 3:51:13 PM   
JPFisher55

 

Posts: 589
Joined: 11/22/2014
Status: offline
Dan109 perfectly stated and described my concerns about sub behavior when it dives too deep to communicate with your forces. However, I reread the communications disruption article. It seems that subs will not lose communications unless the scenario creator writes in a LUA causing the sub to lose communications under certain circumstances. So, I'm confused. I'll have to play with the COW when it comes out and find out its sub communication rules and how they affect play.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 81
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/9/2017 6:56:49 PM   
CCIP-subsim


Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline
I'd just add that there's no need to worry about pre-CoW scenarios being affected. There's no reason to enable comms disruption then - the only thing you'd gain then is units going OOC due to damage to equipment (which pre-CoW means only ships/subs, in any case). So you can safely leave it off (just like you do now with things like advanced gunnery calculations or unlimited magazines now). From what I understand, too, all the new CoW-only features like this and the aircraft damage are "opt-in" for scenarios - i.e. they will always be disabled by default, unless the scenario maker chooses to enable them.


From my point of view as someone who likes to play around with scenario editing - I think it's a feature that, given the way it works now, is best used judiciously and only for a few units or situations per scenario (e.g. to model a major cyber attack). Having large numbers of units going in an out of contact willy-nilly would be very disorienting for the player.

One exception I can think of is scenarios where the player's role is as a "dispatcher" - who issues missions for units. And when these units leave base for their missions and click out, you won't know until they return/resume contact. Could be an interesting mechanic

A similar use might be "first person" missions where the player only has control of units in range/in contact of their "HQ" unit - e.g. a task force commander in a larger operation, with authority to call on any assets that enter his AoR.

We've focused on subs, I think since it's mentioned in the article itself - but to me the use of OOC mechanics is possibly least interesting when it comes to them. I would think of missions where you have to deal with it as being less about dealing with sub comms, and more about missions where you as the player are encouraged to focus on other units instead.

One more thing for scenario designers that I'd add:

Keep in mind the variety of triggers you can use and combine with each other! You can make units go in and out of contact based on entering/exiting an area; you can make them go in/out of contact at specific or random times, you can attach reference points to units (and even let the player edit them), and you can even tie radio contact to events like damage, or contact with another unit. There could be a pretty thorough doctrine set for a unit, which might stay silent except for "safe" areas; you might have units do a check-in for just a few seconds/minutes when you can evaluate it's situation and change orders, and then it'll go out of contact right after and follow it's doctrine until next short check-in. If you have a submarine sent out as a scout to locate a specific high-value unit or task force, it will stay silent when it's in contact with other enemy units and not compromise its stealth - but when it sights the target, it'll report immediately! You could even do it per types of contacts, e.g. a patrol unit meant to search for snooping unfriendly units will ignore fishing boats but report in as soon as it runs into an AGI.

THEN, on top of that, consider using Special Actions! Radio contact management doesn't have to be passive (I.e. sit and twiddle your thumbs until that pesky lost unit checks in) -in creating a scenario, you can also consider simply adding an action -just click "CALL [UNIT]" in Special Actions, and there they are!
On top of that, same goes for managing the SOP for your units. Remember that Special Actions can be used to enable or disable certain events (and vice versa). So, using those, you can allow the player to customize OOC operating procedures for units - and choose whether they want a check-in every hour, or two hours, or what kind of contacts to report, or which areas are safe/unsafe to transmit it. For the sake of realism, it can even be set up to only allow you to give those kinds of instructions to a unit while it's in contact (and not telepathically)

I realize it's a non-trivial job to create these kinds of scenarios of course, and might be a little above-spec for the average CMANO player.
I've already mentioned the idea in the "Airbase Logistics" thread, but I'll repeat it here just in case - one really great thing I'd love to see added to the editor in the future is the ability to import whole "packages" (or templates) of event logic and Lua scripts into scenarios, which would contain whole pre-made systems for things like logistics, AI behaviour and coordination (incl. integrated IADS or C3 networks), and managing this type of contact logic as well. If it were possible to simply plug a system like this into a scenario via a menu in the editor, and then customize it and assign roles to units (e.g. if you wanted to have sub comms limitations, you'd just have to select which subs you want to use it). It'd certainly be easier without learning Lua and writing perhaps hundreds of lines of scripts! Not that learning Lua is a bad thing

(in reply to JPFisher55)
Post #: 82
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 1:07:29 AM   
Stalin46

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/25/2017
Status: offline
Such a question concerning cruise missiles. At the moment, missiles not equipped with a data link, when it leaves the area of ​​sight of our radar, are displayed on the map. With the output of DLC, what will it look like? Will the missile also be visible or vice versa, when leaving the zone of visibility, the cruise missile will disappear from the map? (Sorry for my bad english)

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)
Post #: 83
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 4:19:24 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stalin46
Such a question concerning cruise missiles. At the moment, missiles not equipped with a data link, when it leaves the area of ​​sight of our radar, are displayed on the map. With the output of DLC, what will it look like? Will the missile also be visible or vice versa, when leaving the zone of visibility, the cruise missile will disappear from the map? (Sorry for my bad english)


Unless you script them otherwise, they will behave as before.

_____________________________


(in reply to Stalin46)
Post #: 84
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 11:08:17 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline
To Matrix Devs:

There seems to be much talk about accomplishing various tasks in the game through the use of Lua Scripting. For what it's worth (and maybe I am just the minority), I find that the Lua Scripting is extremely complex, and time consuming, not to mention, intimidating. I have spent several hours working on something with Lua that I expect to work, only to find out that in the end it doesn't. I finally just give up.

Again, perhaps it's me, but creating a Lua Script is not fun. It's tedious. Obviously, it is over my head. I just want to play the game, and attempting to write a Lua Script is not fun at all.

If the revised version of the game is going to be so Lua Script-dependent, as it would appear from the comments, could a dumbed-down version of Lua Scripting be created? Perhaps it could be something with drag and drop menus, or you click on a unit, and then pull up a Lua Script selection menu where a particular order can be made. But, in all honesty, typing out some long string of a Lua Script, only to end up wondering why it didn't work, isn't fun.

Please keep in mind that not everyone who plays this game is on your level. From reviewing the various USER-CREATED scenarios, not many of those scenarios have many Lua Scripts programmed into them, either. If this is any indication, then there may be others, like me, who are more than a little "intimidated" or flummoxed by the concept of Lua Scripting usage.

For example, if it is going to take Lua Scripting to be able to communicate with my subs in home-made scenarios, then my subs will be forever lost at sea. <lol>

Please simply just discard this message if you deem it to be unimportant to you.

Just my two cents.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Doug

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 85
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 12:39:58 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

ORIGINAL: DWReese

To Matrix Devs:

There seems to be much talk about accomplishing various tasks in the game through the use of Lua Scripting. For what it's worth (and maybe I am just the minority), I find that the Lua Scripting is extremely complex, and time consuming, not to mention, intimidating. I have spent several hours working on something with Lua that I expect to work, only to find out that in the end it doesn't. I finally just give up.

Again, perhaps it's me, but creating a Lua Script is not fun. It's tedious. Obviously, it is over my head. I just want to play the game, and attempting to write a Lua Script is not fun at all.

If the revised version of the game is going to be so Lua Script-dependent, as it would appear from the comments, could a dumbed-down version of Lua Scripting be created? Perhaps it could be something with drag and drop menus, or you click on a unit, and then pull up a Lua Script selection menu where a particular order can be made. But, in all honesty, typing out some long string of a Lua Script, only to end up wondering why it didn't work, isn't fun.

Please keep in mind that not everyone who plays this game is on your level. From reviewing the various USER-CREATED scenarios, not many of those scenarios have many Lua Scripts programmed into them, either. If this is any indication, then there may be others, like me, who are more than a little "intimidated" or flummoxed by the concept of Lua Scripting usage.

For example, if it is going to take Lua Scripting to be able to communicate with my subs in home-made scenarios, then my subs will be forever lost at sea. <lol>

Please simply just discard this message if you deem it to be unimportant to you.

Just my two cents.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Doug


Hi Doug

I think this is the only lua called feature and its one line of lua code or so. Please check it out and then let us know what you think.

We don't ignore anybody but measure our responses based on the post history of a user. This doesn't mean we don't listen to them though.

In a separate string let us know how we can help you with lua more. We'll see what can be done.

Thanks

Mike




< Message edited by mikmyk -- 5/10/2017 12:52:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 86
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 6:40:19 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline
Hi Mike,

Thanks for responding.

I have purchased every game/update/scenario etc. that you have created. I'm quite pleased with everything that you all have done. I very impressed.

That being said, for some reason I feel a little "intimidated" by the Lua concept, etc. It realize that it is absolutely necessary, and I'm not denying that. But, if you guys(the devs), could think of a way to make it a little more user-friendly and forgiving, it might make things a little easier for me.

I don't have any suggestions, however, as to how exactly to do that other than what I previously mentioned at this moment. The idea for a easier Lua Script is merely a suggestion. It's something that could possibly be placed on the back burner for a feature date since it's obviously not a priority.

I will continue to buy anything and everything that you all make regarding the game, regardless of whether the Lua concept is easy or not. I'm just suggesting that maybe it could be re-worked from a different angle to make it more user-friendly.

BTW, I thought that you said that you were leaving. If you nixed those plans and you are actually staying that would be great. <G> You, (and everyone else) have always been very helpful.

Doug

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 87
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/10/2017 7:49:40 PM   
mikmykWS

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Hi Mike,

Thanks for responding.

I have purchased every game/update/scenario etc. that you have created. I'm quite pleased with everything that you all have done. I very impressed.

That being said, for some reason I feel a little "intimidated" by the Lua concept, etc. It realize that it is absolutely necessary, and I'm not denying that. But, if you guys(the devs), could think of a way to make it a little more user-friendly and forgiving, it might make things a little easier for me.

I don't have any suggestions, however, as to how exactly to do that other than what I previously mentioned at this moment. The idea for a easier Lua Script is merely a suggestion. It's something that could possibly be placed on the back burner for a feature date since it's obviously not a priority.

I will continue to buy anything and everything that you all make regarding the game, regardless of whether the Lua concept is easy or not. I'm just suggesting that maybe it could be re-worked from a different angle to make it more user-friendly.

BTW, I thought that you said that you were leaving. If you nixed those plans and you are actually staying that would be great. <G> You, (and everyone else) have always been very helpful.

Doug


Hi Doug

Appreciate it Doug. I'm leaving full time Warfaresims work once the DLC ships and it is good to go but still a shareholder in the company and doing stuff as a hobby. Its time to have fun with it!

In terms of the lua stuff I'm sorry you find it difficult but there are a large number of very productive scenario writers that use it so its definitely worth the effort. If you still feel that the lua crowd is getting things you'd like to see in a different way my suggestion is to put together a list and add it to the wish list. Everybody is pretty good on acting on a feature if it turns out to be popular.

Have a nice day!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 88
RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second stand... - 5/11/2017 4:32:39 PM   
CCIP-subsim


Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline
One part where I'd beg to differ is that there's a lack of community scenarios that use Lua features - I actually find that community scenarios tend to use those more extensively than the official Warfaresims scenarios. But as any trick done well, it's something you wouldn't notice very much in a well-made scenario For example, virtually all scenarios by MGellis (like Uncle Mark's Tutorials and others) use some level of scripting - they're actually what got me interested in the game's scripting!

Otherwise, this one should be pretty straightforward!
In fact, to help out - I'll happily take on writing up a "Sub contact AI template/tutorial", once CoW is out

< Message edited by CCIPsubsim -- 5/11/2017 4:35:30 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations second standalone expansion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

4.109