Each campaign and scenario need to re-tuned by the devs after the introduction of new missile mechanics

[SchDerGrosse]

I know I have made sever similar topics in the past, but it seems that (apart from me) noone is really bothered by the fact that after the new missile mechanics have been introduced, campaigns and official standalone scenarios just dont function properly anymore.

Now that missile range listed in the DB is just nominal, and actual performance widely differ between each and every weapon system, results in the fact that you cant just give the AI a blanket % of WRA setting and be done with it.

I have (re)played the Chains of War campaign from start to finish and had a really weird experience.

Currently the default WRA is 75%, which means that most units just keep wasting ammunition and fail to hit anything as missiles are fired way too early.

The mainstay weapon of the Chinese air force is the Pl-12 missile, which according to the testing that I have done is only effective at around 25% WRA. Anything more than that and the weapon peters out if the target is actively evading.

What does this mean? I COULD rebuild the scenario by setting the Chinese systems to fire at 25% of their maximal range and thus making their aircraft actually worth something, but at the same time I would also gimp more advanced systems that have missiles with more fuel and could fire from a much farther distance (PL-15, S-400 batteries, certain ship based missiles etc.).

As far as I can see, legacy scenarios will have to rebuilt by the devs from scratch, by setting the WRA of each and every unit individually, taking into account the characteristics of the weapons they are carrying.

I know that there are *certain* forum members who will jump to my throat and tell me that if i dont like the current way of things I should just get into the scenario editor and do these things myself but I dont think that it is my job as a consumer to spend hours to patch legacy scenarios and bring them back to their former standard.

I am saying the above with the utmost respect to the devs as I am extremely happy of how the game is evolving (see the recent switch to 64 bit), but there is just no going around the fact that campaigns and scenarios are in a serious need of a retpuch.

I hope this gets done sometime in the future.

Cheers,

[DWReese]

I'm not going to "jump down your throat", and I acknowledge that what you are saying is true. The older scenarios are less effective/fun to play if they have not been updated to match the new aspects of the revised game mechanics. All of that is true.

That being said, in my opinion, few people go back and play old scenarios. Generally, after they have played them, their interest wanes, thereby making them less important. So, in the limited hours that someone has to spends in their day, revising an older scenario that few will likely ever play seems to be of a low priority.

CMO is a very forward, and expanding game. It changes all of the time. Some of the original game devs are no longer with the company. Many of the scenario designers have other games that they are involved in, or they no longer even dabble in making scenarios for CMO. Heck, even the game has changed its name from CMANO to CMO. So, I don't think that you can realistically expect members of the game company, or the original scenario designers to come out of retirement (wherever old scenario designers retire to) and spend a day, or two, or three, revising an old scenario.

There are plenty of scenarios that I played way back in the beginning---starting with HARPOON. Those were fun, and I'd love to have them now. But, if I did, they would be way outdated, and the new features of CMO would far surpass anything that existed back then. The same is true of CMO. Scenarios designed in 2014 are radically inferior to those created today.

I would think that the game company likely has a responsibility to update any tutorial, or things that they currently sell, but they have no responsibility to update and community scenarios, and that's for certain. Additionally, you could argue that their responsibility to update the scenarios of DLCs is also limited. If you buy a boxed version on the game today, in all likelihood you will have to update it after installing it. Things just change too fast.

Plus, they do supply you with the scenario editor, and you can edit them yo make them into whatever percentages that you want. (I do agree that many of these games are dramatically when these values are altered.)

Even though I might not sound like it, I do agree with you, and it would be nice if all of these scenarios could be updated. I just believe that things are moving so quickly that "updating the scenarios" is probably ranked about 126th on the list of things to do today. And, I just don't think that they employ the personnel to make changes to all of these scenarios.

That's my take.

[Peter Lagas]

So, actually we have a command version with a new DB, 64 k, all new terain features and the rest, and not a single scenario to play??

[mikerohan]

[..]
Even though I might not sound like it, I do agree with you, and it would be nice if all of these scenarios could be updated. I just believe that things are moving so quickly that "updating the scenarios" is probably ranked about 126th on the list of things to do today. And, I just don't think that they employ the personnel to make changes to all of these scenarios.

[..]

I see your point, and as a Team Manager of a software development team I really understand that situation.

But as a user, I'm doubtful on the paid DLCs, "Live" and particularly the "Showcase" series (those are not that old).
Tiny (plus this latest x64 version) was a huge change. We had to learn new tricks and adapt to new situations and developments. There were discussions on new mechanics and results that we, as players, were not sure if they were bugs or a mechanic that we were not fully understanding. All that was OK (at least in my particular case) when I was in a "exploring mood": change this setting, see how it develops, compare with previous experiences.

The "problem" comes when I'm a "I just want to play mood". There is no "official" scenario that I could play with the latest version and without having to wonder if the WRA was intended for "other versions", if the results are the intended or are being affected by the latest changes. If my planes are able to evade, is that because they are that good or because the enemy has a "wrong" WRA?

I played several scenarios when a set of scenarios with NEZ was released and I think I answered in some post that I did not experience results that were so different from results before Tiny. But now I'm not sure anymore. If the changes are relevant (which the more I tinker the more I think they are) then they have to affect the results. If I experience similar results I lean towards thinking that the scenario is not taking advantage of the changes.

So I think that scenarios built or "offcially-updated" (not only db-rebuilt) for these changes are necessary. In fact I truly believe that the product/game needs a scenario built to really showcase the full potential post-Tiny. A scenario that is going to be kept "up-to-date" at least during this "cycle" until the next major set of changes comes.

Cheers!

[thewood1]

I vote to stop adding new features. It seems the only reasonable conclusion. The other option is stop updating your version of CMO. Both are reasonable choices. One dev driven and one player driven.

edit: I think the devs should post a pre-Tiny version and some people can play that. It solves the new feature issue and the 32 vs 64 bit issues.

[Peter Lagas]

I second that.

Regards

[mikerohan]

I vote to stop adding new features. It seems the only reasonable conclusion. The other option is stop updating your version of CMO. Both are reasonable choices. One dev driven and one player driven.

edit: I think the devs should post a pre-Tiny version and some people can play that. It solves the new feature issue and the 32 vs 64 bit issues.

???? I'm sorry, but I'm lost...

If this is "ironic mode on", I think that "it seems the only reasonable conclusion" means that my post has not been understood... My bad if I was that cryptic... I'm really sorry if that is your conclusion. I'm really in favor of new features and changes. I was just asking for a scenario built to showcase those advances.

If your answer is for real, then I'm really lost... I have an old installation, just in case, and I don't really use it. I want the new features and anything that is on the development queue. I did not imply I did not want any new development... On the contrary, I was favoring releasing new versions with truly adapted or newly built scenarios...



Take WRA: there have been discussions on NEZ, 75%, 50%, 25%, missile types, mission types... I'm not aware of an official scenario that has different ranges for different types of planes, or even different missions. NOT for the purpose of "having it right" (as I'm sure there will be different opinions and controversies) but for showcasing the multiple possibilities and a potential implementation.

For me there is no "new feature issue"... but to be honest there are no official scenarios adapted to those new features. When I use the game as a sandbox I don't care. When I just want to play, it's a concern...

[thewood1]

A single WRA for all planes has been the standard for CMO since WRAs were introduced. Don't forget WRAs were introduced as a new feature only in 2018. They weren't even available when the original scenarios and a number of DLCs were built. Before WRAs were introduced, EVERY airplane fired at max range unless manually fired. They were introduced four years into the CMNAO/CMO run.

And I'm not being ironic. It seems some people think the changed missile physics broke all original scenarios. The easy solution is for the devs to not make changes that impact ALL players. Or players who want the old scenario play to stop using updated games. Its fairly easy. Whereas going through every scenario and hand changing every WRA is monumentally time-consuming and costly in labor. I do a fair amount of scenario building and a single medium-sized scenario would take at least a day to change and then a testing cycle would probably consume a week. Thats on the easy side and that would consume a couple people a solid year. Is that really where players want devs to spend their time? On top of that, not a single player complaining about this has brought a single scenario that missile physics has had a meaningful impact on the final outcome. There are a lot of generalities but no specific saves. I use Op Brass Drum as a standard benchmark and I get the same outcome today on 1328.9 as I did in CMNAO 1.07.

So far, the devs have had WRA default to Max, NEZ, and 75%. Guess what? Some people still complain about it in each case. So the solution now seems to be that the devs go through every mission and hand tailor WRAs for every unit after every change. Is that correct? WHat about SAMs, torpedoes, sonar, radar, etc. Those have had even more significant changes than AAM physics. Should all missions be rebuilt?

As a player, this is completely in your control. Go back to CMNAO or go back to pre-Tiny.

[mikerohan]

Well, I'm really sorry that I'm not able to make myself understood.

Go back to CMNAO or go back to pre-Tiny.

I have not asked for this. I have proposed to have a scenario that really showcases the changes and/or have a scenario that is kept "up-to-date" with the changes of a release cycle. Change to another scenario or create a new one with the next cycle, for example.

Before WRAs were introduced, EVERY airplane fired at max range unless manually fired. They were introduced four years into the CMNAO/CMO run.

Precisely! A scenario showcasing those changes could have been great. Then and now...

WHat about SAMs, torpedoes, sonar, radar, etc. Those have had even more significant changes than AAM physics. Should all missions be rebuilt?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, But please, do concede me that, for example if right now you want to play silent service, there is a degree of uncertainty about the intended results. Do those scenarios still work as intended when they were released?
A complete overhaul maybe too time consuming for the dev team. Then I can concede that they were built for "another game". The result being, that there is no one official scenario meant to be played with the current generation.

Or players who want the old scenario play to stop using updated games. Its fairly easy. Whereas going through every scenario and hand changing every WRA is monumentally time-consuming and costly in labor.

I have never asked for what you are saying here. Agree with my proposal or not. It's only my opinion on the state of the official scenarios of an otherwise great game/sim. But please, Do not make it sound like I'm resisting to change or I do not like the new features. That is totally not it.
I know I can play the scenarios in a previous version (I think I have stated that already), and I know how to do it. So move on.
I know that updating all the scenarios may be more than the dev team can handle. And, of course, there are lots of other conditions that make this idea feasible or not. But do not dismiss it as if I'm implying that I'm against the changes.
I'm just suggesting to have an up-to-date scenario with every major release cycle.
Constructive criticism does not only come when someone finds a better equation to describe some radar model. It takes several forms. And of course criticism, constructive or not, does not have to be agreed with: But one thing is not agreeing and another is dismissing it making it sound it was asking for something that was not.

At least ONE scenario per major release cycle - NOT rebuilding everything.

And if it is a "Live" or "Showcase" DLC, I'm welcoming it.

[FifthDomain]

Edit i retract this statement as mentioned below completely forgot they had already been done.

[thewood1]

Please don't be offended so easily. I didn't quote you because mine was directed at the bringing of this issue again with no specifics, not specifically you. The OP is not asking for one scenario to be done. This is at least the third time this topic was brought up. There seems to be limited support.

I do agree that tutorials of the major changes to show the difference might be helpful. But that's not going to help people that had their favorite toy neutered. The new manual and PGat's videos do a pretty good job talking about the differences so its a start.

[thewood1]

I will point also that every scenario has been rebuilt at least twice with new WRAs. This is not about rebuilding old scenarios because something changed. Its about requests to rebuild ALL scenarios with very specific WRAs for all units. Something those original scenarios never had. Why should the devs expend that energy when no one has brought anything to the table to show the exact issues in a scenario?

[FifthDomain]

Sorry, yer i forgot they had all had the WRA already changed not sure what more than that you could do. Adding the new features to all the old DLCs and Lives would need a whole second team i imagine. I've not played them for a while so not sure if anything actually does need doing to make them work as they are supposed to.

This thread got me wanting to try Desert Storm DLC with the operation planner though.

Just looked at the Change log on steam for the latest release in fact and its says a good portion of them have already been updated to the latest version so i'll retract my previous comment anyway.

It also say a new Showcase DLC coming soon that will be showcasing all the new features.

From Steam and Matrix page:

"Operation Desert Falcon, is designed to Showcase some of the newest features and gameplay Command has to offer. While you may be able to complete the scenario without them, you should do so at your own risk!!
Navigate your way through an emerging crisis. Utilizing the Multi Domain Strike planner, Ops Planner, Cargo 2.0 and palletized munitions, you will have to manage multiple air to air refuelling's, synchronized multi domain strikes, as well as the logistics involved in evacuating civilians out of harms way in a constantly evolving scenario."

[mikerohan]

It also say a new Showcase DLC coming soon that will be showcasing all the new features.

From Steam and Matrix page:

"Operation Desert Falcon, is designed to Showcase some of the newest features and gameplay Command has to offer. While you may be able to complete the scenario without them, you should do so at your own risk!!
Navigate your way through an emerging crisis. Utilizing the Multi Domain Strike planner, Ops Planner, Cargo 2.0 and palletized munitions, you will have to manage multiple air to air refuelling's, synchronized multi domain strikes, as well as the logistics involved in evacuating civilians out of harms way in a constantly evolving scenario."

That sounds vey promising!

[mikerohan]

The new manual and PGat's videos do a pretty good job talking about the differences so its a start.

Yes! I totally agree with that.

[Peter Lagas]

Hello all,
Above posts was interesting to read, I understand the commend of the dev’s and, lets be honest, all the updates are still free of charge and must be a huge amount of work, and always deeply appreciated by me.

But I like to give an example of my personal experience playing with this new version.

I am 65 years old and just retired so I have a lot of time to play. Starting with Harpoon I must have played thousands of hours (I still mis the formation-editor from Harpoon ), I love the really big scenarios and sometimes it takes all afternoon just to get started ( thanks Gunner ).
With a new version I mostly avoid the community scens for a period of time because they can be a bit buggy.
But me thinking I have Standalone scens and Chains of war....... lets start with Air Sea Battle

First I notice groupspeed isn’t saved and must be changed after every save, ok I can live with that.
Than after a few hours of play I launch a F-35B from America only to see that it’s returning to base after 500nm , checking the DB I notice the fuel burn rate should be 24 kg/min, the one I launched has a fbr of 52 kg/min . So now I’m thinking, lets try the editor and upgrade to the latest DB. But that doesn’t help

Ok, new scen. Lets play They Shall Not Pass from The silent service.
Again, a few hours in and ready to launch torpedo’s……….to notice they must be micro-managed to hit something.
Now to be honest I was a bit pissed (pardon my French) playing for hours and all......... and what will be next.

My first thought: doesn’t anybody test this, I can understand a problem with the F-35, could be just a download glitch or something like that, but firing a torpedo?

If this new version is only for testing, just say so, I can test all coming winter if you like, but be a little bit more clear about it.

For me it’s back to Command v1.04 build 1147.48 and start playing NorthernFury for the umpteenth time.

I hope I am not to harsh or insulting to anybody as this post is just a reflection of my thoughts.
Kind regards,
Peter.

[thewood1]

I am pretty sure those two bugs were reported and were fixed for the next update. Is this related to the AAM physics?

[Peter Lagas]

Wow! thats an answer that is very bad for my bloodpressure

[Kobu]

Hi

First the incredible support for this game/sim is truly amazing. I think that people dont understand the difficult in assign the range at which aircraft should fire. It depends on so many factors like mission type, proeficiency, loadout, etc so it is very difficult to assign a default value. Each unit should have a specific value with the work that this entails, and even then not everyone would agree.

I think people have the feeling that missiles fail a lot but shooting out of NEZ against competent enemies will always be a missile that does not shoot down that plane but it does not have to be a failure, it depends on what your objective is (prevent other planes from attacking your bases air, defend units on the ground, allow other planes to attack an area...).
So the new missile mechanic is definitely the way to go and simulates better A-A engagement.

Regarding the versions y think that there should be a good base version where the people can play with as few bugs as possible, i know is a very complex game with many variables but i have the feeling that some bugs already past and fixed are repeated from time to time creating a bad gaming experience.

Regards

[Peter Lagas]

I am pretty sure those two bugs were reported and were fixed for the next update. Is this related to the AAM physics?

Dear Sir,

Thinking about it for a few hours, my reply was a bit to fast.

After such a arrogant answer i like challange you to a duel with super-Sabre or Sword-fish torpedo, even a GAU-8 would do nice.

It's a pitty i can't tell you excactly what to do with your game, the moderator would never allow that.
For me this is my last post, i stick to chess and fishing from now on. In the Netherlands we say "het was een mooi boek, maar ik heb het uit"

Kind regards and goodluck.

Peter.