Jeffrey Pelt: Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull?
Ambassador ...

Nikel wrote: Wed May 13, 2026 2:36 pm There is a P Gatcomb tutorial explaining those numbers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc4pohpgRmU

Just watched that video. Thanks for posting it.

I've seen in scripts ships referred by the codes shown in the example below:

Chinese Type 054A Frigate (2495_4928|17470 and 2495_3731|5431)

Thanks.


Off the top of my head I can't tell what those numbers might be referring too from that snippet. It you post the script the snippet came from it ...

thewood1 wrote: Mon May 04, 2026 11:57 am I think its not just the browser. Its the security settings on the browser. There is a difference between Chrome defaults and Edge.

That makes sense. I don't typically use Edge but, for downloading 1852 it worked fine.

As a practical, technical and mission-relevant matter, what do people think of this? Unclear if these will ever get built, but the stated goal is two of them by 2028. Are we entering a new golden age for the battleship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship


I don’t believe ship ...

So this is resolved ?


No. I don't believe it's resolved. It is my understanding that the GBI based in Alaska should be able to engage the incoming ICBM. The manual launch panel just indicates unable to intercept without a reason. The California based GBI can intercept the ICBM but, seems to ...

Tested in B1852 with db v516, the GBI interceptors will turn now to impact the incoming missile. So it is fixed.

Tested also in the new build, without updating the db of the scenario, and the turn may happen or not.


I don't think this is fixed. The site in Alaska should be engaging that ICBM ...

Tested in B1852 with db v516, the GBI interceptors will turn now to impact the incoming missile. So it is fixed.

Tested also in the new build, without updating the db of the scenario, and the turn may happen or not.


I don't think this is fixed. The site in Alaska should be engaging that ICBM ...

So this is resolved ?


No. I don't believe it's resolved. It is my understanding that the GBI based in Alaska should be able to engage the incoming ICBM. The manual launch panel just indicates unable to intercept without a reason. The California based GBI can intercept the ICBM but, seems to me ...

The GBI in Alaska still don't launch. Issue with the GBI and LRDR stills exists.


I noticed that it will fire if you remove the second GBI unit.

It is more effective though in the last build and with the updated db. There is a final sprint to impact the missile :)


That's interesting ...

Nikel wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2026 4:03 pm
Hi Mark.

Note that I am talking about B1852, the last beta.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=416771

My bad. I see that now. Thanks!

The NK missile impacts on the Cobra Dane radar in the Aleutian islands, instead of the Pentagon that is the target in the mission, a new bug?


That's weird. I downloaded the version posted here to the forum and played it in v1.09 Build 1825.15 and the NK missile goes for the Pentagon not the ...

Check the Weapons Release Authorization (WRA). The WRA for the YJ-63 [KD-63) is currently set to not use against a runway access point. That's why the aircraft will not launch. The aircraft will launch when you authorize that weapon to be used against a runway access point. Go to the WRA screen in ...

My Steam version updated the other day. It's not a beta. I think you just need to make sure Default Public Version is selected under Game Versions & Betas in Steam and it will update next time you start CMO.

That is a really interesting idea. I haven't done much with ground units but, I have noticed the weird paths ground units can take after I have plotted a course to a specific location. Teleporting units on the computer-side could create a challenging scenario for the player-side. A designer might ...

Knightpawn wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 7:06 pm

Nikel wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 5:17 pm Messy file with all kind of targets.

Can the Ai do something about it to make it easy to read and purged?

https://x.com/HamWa07/status/2011275400920645929


Direct link.

https://paste.sh/DllBLeQd#Ef_-dKsxfIWTJrO0oqIfzCV0

I hope this is a start.

Nice spreadsheet!

If computer side starts with Unfriendly posture towards player, and I destroy or damage one of its units will it treat the player as hostile automatically thereafter, or do i have to set up an event that is triggered when Unit Destroyed and has an action ScenEdit_SetSidePosture etc


Yes. At that ...

Thanks for playing the scenario and providing feedback, Nikel. The scenario is not quite ready for prime time. You found a couple of issues I was not tracking. I need to work on those.

-There is a problem with the Leonov I did not catch. After reading your note I played it through again I and saw ...

Knightpawn wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 7:16 pm OVW and ASW missions are still pre set in v2.

My apologies. I didn't consider folks playing in the editor. That's my bad. Thanks for pointing it out. I've posted an updated version 3. The missions should be removed from existence ( I hope). Learning something new with CMO everyday.

I liked the mission. Small and refreshing, manages to keep the tension.
I would delete the blue missions. Designing them is part of the fun. Other that that I did not face any real problems.
I boarded Marinera and escorted it to the destination port, without facing any threat from the submarine ...