RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[SunlitZelkova]

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

I was wondering:
In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity.
We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large.

If this has already been asked for, please forgive me...
Thank you!

The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all...

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

I was wondering:
In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity.
We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large.
If this has already been asked for, please forgive me...
Thank you!

The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all...

These folks do a great deal of work; I was trying to be keep the request small and manageable for the developers. [:)]
[8D]

[SunlitZelkova]

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

I was wondering:
In the commercial category if we could have maybe three ships with a cargo capacity.
We do not need a lot: maybe one small, one medium, one large.
If this has already been asked for, please forgive me...
Thank you!

The cargo ships should all have cargo capacity, it shouldn't only be three of them. They are cargo ships after all...

These folks do a great deal of work; I was trying to be keep the request small and manageable for the developers. [:)]
[8D]

Adding cargo capability for cargo ships doesn't have to come all at once. They could start with the dry bulk carriers, and then every now and then add it for other ships.

[DWReese]

I've mentioned this one before, and it has now listed as a choice (thank you), but I would again like to mention having the ability to tow other ships.

Quite often, I encounter a situation where an otherwise-good ship becomes disabled in the water. I do realize that the time restraints on the scenario would not usually be conducive to tow another ship, but there are times when it could happen. For example, if a Task Force was damaged in battle and found it necessary to withdraw from the area (rather than advance), I'm certain that they wouldn't just leave a disabled ship that has engine trouble behind, while all the others flee.

Not being a programmer, I'm not sure how difficult that this would be to create, so I couldn't begin to tell anyone how it could be done. I do realize that this topic is way down on the list of priorities, but I do find it interesting that the first topic on this list is "downed pilot", so you would think that if a rescue effort was important enough to save one guy, then certainly rescuing a whole ship must rank pretty high up there, as well.

In any case, this is just me throwing in my two cents for a topic that personally interests me. Truthfully, however, there are many other things that are on the list that I would vote for before I voted for long before I voted for my own suggestion. <G>

Thanks for taking the suggestion under consideration.

Doug

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I've mentioned this one before, and it has now listed as a choice (thank you), but I would again like to mention having the ability to tow other ships.
Quite often, I encounter a situation where an otherwise-good ship becomes disabled in the water. I do realize that the time restraints on the scenario would not usually be conducive to tow another ship, but there are times when it could happen. For example, if a Task Force was damaged in battle and found it necessary to withdraw from the area (rather than advance), I'm certain that they wouldn't just leave a disabled ship that has engine trouble behind, while all the others flee.
Not being a programmer, I'm not sure how difficult that this would be to create, so I couldn't begin to tell anyone how it could be done. I do realize that this topic is way down on the list of priorities, but I do find it interesting that the first topic on this list is "downed pilot", so you would think that if a rescue effort was important enough to save one guy, then certainly rescuing a whole ship must rank pretty high up there, as well.
In any case, this is just me throwing in my two cents for a topic that personally interests me. Truthfully, however, there are many other things that are on the list that I would vote for before I voted for long before I voted for my own suggestion. <G>
Thanks for taking the suggestion under consideration.
Doug

That could make for some pretty cool scenarios... like towing a carrier out of the gulf...
Or towing a carrier through a submarine threat...
Or even convoy duty...

[DWReese]

In many conflict situations, something happens to disable a ship (or plane--like in China with EP-3 Aries in 2001 in the South China Sea) and a political/military crisis develops as a result.

The USS Pueblo was a spy ship in 1968 and was captured by North Korea. (As a side note, the USS Pueblo is still being held in Pyongyang as a trophy, and it is still listed as a Commissioned Vessel of the USN.) While the real vessel did not suffer any propulsion damage, a disabled propulsion system could make for a good backdrop for a scenario.

In fact, in Tom Clancy's latest book, a US spy vessel does become disabled and has to be rescued. A race-against-time situation develops which could also make for a good scenario starter backdrop.

In any case, in my opinion, it is a worthwhile back-burner endeavor that could be useful.

Doug

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
In many conflict situations, something happens to disable a ship (or plane--like in China with EP-3 Aries in 2001 in the South China Sea) and a political/military crisis develops as a result.
The USS Pueblo was a spy ship in 1968 and was captured by North Korea. (As a side note, the USS Pueblo is still being held in Pyongyang as a trophy, and it is still listed as a Commissioned Vessel of the USN.) While the real vessel did not suffer any propulsion damage, a disabled propulsion system could make for a good backdrop for a scenario.
In fact, in Tom Clancy's latest book, a US spy vessel does become disabled and has to be rescued. A race-against-time situation develops which could also make for a good scenario starter backdrop.
In any case, in my opinion, it is a worthwhile back-burner endeavor that could be useful.

Doug

Another couple of fun ideas.

[DWReese]

Indeed.

Doug

[Dysta]

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/s ... 8617426944

[SunlitZelkova]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/s ... 8617426944

Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/s ... 8617426944

Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.

Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/s ... 8617426944

Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.

Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

I mean, if you're going to do over-penetration, we might as well add JDAM impact angle and fuse settings to the manual fire dialog [8|]

[SunlitZelkova]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin




Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.

Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

I mean, if you're going to do over-penetration, we might as well add JDAM impact angle and fuse settings to the manual fire dialog [8|]

Fuse settings would be nice too! For nuclear weapons, selecting the yield would also be handy, as well as detonation altitude.

[NimrodX]

Draw radius circle around ruler tool.

make ruler tool persist on screen until next time Ctrl-D is hit.

[Primarchx]

Still looking for an in-game timer. One that you can set to go off at a certain time or after certain amount of time and pauses the game with a message.

[p1t1o]

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/s ... 8617426944

Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.

I think over-penetration is the sort of thing that is already taken into account with a general "probability of failure". Adding a seperate, curated, "probability of over penetration" would not bring much extra to the simulation.

Sometimes whan a bomb, AA missile or torpedo (etc) "misses" or "malfunctions", its representing the probability of of things like GPS failure, power failure, dud fuse, faulty datalink, ricochet, dumb luck or perhaps "over penetration".

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

I think over-penetration is the sort of thing that is already taken into account with a general "probability of failure".

Can't deny the missile might have failed, but still can be a lethal failure:

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201607020003.aspx

If not the OP, this fishing dingy will turned into a confetti. Surely it's armed with a deadly warhead, but not set off inside the boat. As tested in CMANO many times in attempt to replicate such incident, either a full-blown destruction, or the failure nullify the threat entirely.

[NimrodX]

Saving games and other data in the user directory would be helpful for managing backups.

[p1t1o]

Lethal failure = a succesful hit to the simulation engine, in other words, you can expect a conventional hit and an lethal over-penetration to look identical inside CMANO, which IMO is already happening.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Lethal failure = a succesful hit to the simulation engine, in other words, you can expect a conventional hit and an lethal over-penetration to look identical inside CMANO, which IMO is already happening.

I was talking about the detonation effect, calculated to DP bonus in CMANO. I also know a tomahawk with more remaining fuel in it could cause bigger damage than lesser because of the FAE, but only works when achieved adequate penetration.

OP however is indicate the missile warhead goes off too late, or even a dud, that the remaining kinetic energy will go through the ship hull, the shorter of the cutout width, the more likely to cause OP. The target will not receive DP bonus when warhead explode outside the ship, unless it's a fixed, land-based unit that being bombarded vertically, since ground cannot be overpenetrated.

Here's the example, see how much the detonated force of energy escaped from the other side. If they are all inside the ship, it'll rain a shower of steel already: