RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[hellfish6]

Ah crap. My bad. I've already voted too. [:)]

[Casinn]

D; All of the Above

[Mgellis]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repost it here because I didn't see it as an option for the poll...

Pre-set altitude options in the thrust/altitude section. Along with loiter/cruise/full/flank, could we have Very Low (100 meters), Low (500 meters), and Medium (2000 meters) as standard options for aircraft? (The default seems to be "High" already so I left that out.)

[miller7219]

[/quote]

4. Remembering of user map preferences

5. More information added in various places, like ranges added to the Aircraft and Load Out windows or sensor status added to the unit card along the right, for example. I'm sure others have more info they'd like added here and there to help the player and simplify/reduce the mouse clicks.

After playing tonight I thought of some more gameplay features:

1. Weapon arcs. You want to bring the most weapons to bear to engage incoming air threats, or in surface gunnery scenarios the most guns to bear on enemy surface threats. There's no where I can find in game to see weapon arcs. How about adding a feature to the Weapon window where when you click on a mount its arc appears on the map window (like radar arcs)?

2. Not just remember map preferences, but window positions too. It gets annoying moving the a window out of they way every time you bring it up! Would be nice is the game remembered where a window was moved by the user and brought it up in the last location.

[Stevechase]

Does anyone else feel there is a place for what I posted earlier (see attachment in post # 17 or below) For unit status helpers.(Dashboard).It has not been added to the list yet, so it may just be me, but I felt others might find this useful as well. Anyway I like most all the ideas I have seen so far here.

[ExMachina]

FWIW, I really like your ideas. However, I'm guessing that they might present quite a large amount of game interface re-configuration(?)

[Dimitris]

I like the weapon summary, in fact it's quite similar to our vision for that. I'm not so certain about the throttle/altitude widget.

[ExMachina]

In case you guys missed this (from another thread)

ORIGINAL: emsoy
Have to finish a whole bunch of high-priority database requests and also finish coding the new Speed/Altitude window and Waypoint Orders first.

[:)][:)][:)][:)]

[Stevechase]

Thanks, the throttle/altitude could be redundant/unnecessary. But I think weapons and sensors would make knowing status of units more efficient.

[miller7219]

I already voted for speed/altitude per waypoint (hope you include sensor setting and manual attack orders to what can be ordered by way point too!). But now were getting some other really good additions to the the poll that I'd like too. I do think being able to add orders by way point is still my #1, but I'd like give my top 5:

1. Way point orders
2. Per weapon manual withhold
3. Quick jump to units/locations
4. Weapon Arcs
5. Remember size/location of windows

All of these five address UI/Player Control issues. My personal assessment of Command, at this stage of it's development, is that UI/Player Control is the root of the majority of the gripes people have about Command. The detail and modeling of naval warfare is the best ever done in my opinion, but it's weakness is the unpolished UI/Player Control. After addressing stability/running issues, UI/Player control is what I'd invest in improving/developing first.

One of the things that always hacked me off about Harpoon Commander's Edition and H3 ANW's development was that they seemed to always put too much priority on adding new features all the time instead of fixing/improving upon what was already there. I'd rather have less, but have it work correctly and efficiently. But in the end, the various incarnations bearing the Harpoon name all could claim the got bigger and grew more and more features, but none really got better in my opinion, just bigger with more things broken.

As I recall back on the Harpoon Wars that issue of improving vs. new features was one of the wedges that drove the community apart and likely one of the reasons some of the folks involved with Command's development moved to develop Command in the first place. I hope Command's development destiny stays focused on fixing/improving first, then add new stuff upon a fully developed base, and doesn't suffer the same fate as the 20+ year Harpoon saga.

[Stevechase]

Is there a better way to conduct the poll. Could we take off the current leaders and reset everything else to 0 and vote again.

[miller7219]

One of the things that always hacked me off about Harpoon Commander's Edition and H3 ANW's development was that they seemed to always put too much priority on adding new features all the time instead of fixing/improving upon what was already there. I'd rather have less, but have it work correctly and efficiently. But in the end, the various incarnations bearing the Harpoon name all could claim the got bigger and grew more and more features, but none really got better in my opinion, just bigger with more things broken.

I'll give you an example, Harpoon Commander's Ultimate Edition's naval gunnery model is completely broken as of the current 2009.097 "patch" (and has been for several years). It worked as designed once upon a time, but it got broken somewhere around the port from DOS to windows and multiple license owners and then got lost to all the "let's add new features" mentality. Yes, I'm talking about something as essential as naval gunnery is broken. Command, please don't fall victim to the same mentality. Fix/improve upon what already is and its shortcomings, and then add new features after please and thank you [:)]

It's not broken, but in my opinion the shortcomings to Command currently are the UI/Player control aspects and the AI could use some development. Fix the stability bugs, and then put all efforts into improving the UI/Player control and developing the AI. All else can wait until the base is solid.

[miller7219]

I agree. Can a poll be created that allows participants to vote from 1-5 in order of their top issues? It's hard to pick just 1!

[Dimitris]

Removed the DB-hyperlinks as this is already being implemented. If you voted for it feel free to re-cast your vote!

[BKLANDIN]

This one item is big, thanks for the update.

[riflebrigade]

Would it be possible to include a button to show maximum range rings for aircraft with current fuel load?
Preferably for cruise speed at current and most economical height.
To me the major games play features nominated are: -
1. Crew proficiency (quality and training) is a major factor and can have a large effect on weapon effectiveness.
2. Refine air combat evasion limitations (reduced agility) would provide a much more realistic game.
This could also be influenced by the Crew Proficiency rating.

[Agathosdaimon]

ORIGINAL: riflebrigade

Would it be possible to include a button to show maximum range rings for aircraft with current fuel load?
Preferably for cruise speed at current and most economical height.
To me the major games play features nominated are: -
1. Crew proficiency (quality and training) is a major factor and can have a large effect on weapon effectiveness.
2. Refine air combat evasion limitations (reduced agility) would provide a much more realistic game.
This could also be influenced by the Crew Proficiency rating.

Yes to all this - definitely need range rings or something - i cant find range information anywhere and i find it important to know how far i send out aircraft so to speak - which mean all the difference in some scenarios too

perhaps crew proficiency could be an optional setting -and could be randomised to a varying degree, or set as per the designed scenario

[ExMachina]

i cant find range information anywhere and i find it important to know how far i send out aircraft so to speak

Range info is already displayed in the sidebar for the selected unit (listed under remaining fuel).

[Tomcat84]

Well, really it's only endurance that it shows, right? So you have to do the calculation yourself.

(e.g. 3 hrs 23 remaining at 480 kts = 3.383*480 = 1624 nm)

[ExMachina]

Oh. You might be right [:o]

So it should be a trivial thing to have the game do that calculation for us. That would be a good addition(though I've obviously never felt the need to use it [;)])