RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[deepdive]

I would like that an unknown contact would freeze in its track (stop jumping around) loose its pointer and fade slowly away, like change to an grey or darker colour, and remove uncertain rings, at least to be selectable, also for those displayed seconds since last fixed position, to be selectable for uncluttering of the map.

Bjørn

[AlexGGGG]

For AAW Patrols,

I would like to propose two things

1. Dampen dropping a target. If a contact jumps on the boundary of CAP prosecution area, CAP aircraft will dance around repeatedly running towards contact on afterburners, then returning back to the contact area. This wastes a lot of fuel. Especially noticeable in a jammed environment when CAP cannot get precise fix on a contact, and the contact jumps in-out of the prosecution area. So I propose the change be made if the contact was auto-targeted during CAP mission, this target cannot be dropped earlier than one minute after it was last targeted.

2. Make an transit option for AAW. Currently we do not have that; I mean it would be nice to have the "strict" transit throttle override option for AAW patrols. This way, if the target is already inside the prosecution area, the fighters will still transit towards the patrol area in cruise, rather than wasting all the fuel in afterburners immediately after takeoff.

[pepolk0001]

Ability to change color of grouped reference points and shaded patrol/prosecution areas. Ability to show/hide specific missions via the map display menu.

Artist's conception included.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

I agree. A support mission or maybe even a patrol mission with Weapons Hold/Tight (e.g. engage opportunity targets NO, engage unknowns, NO, Unit hold fire (no ai attacks) selected (possibly Lua enable this one) and it should work?

Support missions are great for route reconnaissance, but not so great for area recon.

And while I like the idea of LUAs, I'd still like to have the ability to create a recon mission (where the only fire allowed is in self defense - I'd like my recon aircraft to be able to use their AIM-9s or AA-8s if they need to) without having to learn to program a script to do it.

[thewood1]

I completely disagree. I use the support method all the time for area recon. Please explain in detail why it doesn't work.

If you want to be a good scenario designer, I can't understand why you wouldn't use Lua. Its a tool that most other games only dream of. I am no programmer, but see immediately that it allows any scenario designer to do a bunch of things without asking for developer resources for niche features.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I completely disagree. I use the support method all the time for area recon. Please explain in detail why it doesn't work.

Again, this is for an AI side mission. Not a player-controlled mission. I'll give it a shot, but off the top of my head I don't see it giving me the kind of randomness/flexibility I want to have. I know where the enemy units are or will pop up - so I as a designer would give that mission to the AI knowing that I was either intentionally aiding or harming the player.

At least with an AI-controlled area patrol, the result of the recon is more unpredictable AND the aircraft/platform can loiter and investigate contacts (so it spots something at a distance, can close with an investigate it until it's satisfied it can ID the contact). A support mission is effectively on rails, though admittedly I've only used them for AEW, EW and tanker missions so far.

And again, I'd like my aircraft/platform to autonomously perform self-defense. Something I can't recall a support mission allowing for, something a hold-fire command wouldn't allow, and something that might actually be helpful in other mission types as well (so an A-10 can do more than just evade a MiG's missiles without player intervention).

If you want to be a good scenario designer, I can't understand why you wouldn't use Lua. Its a tool that most other games only dream of. I am no programmer, but see immediately that it allows any scenario designer to do a bunch of things without asking for developer resources for niche features.

First and foremost, I make missions I want to play. I like the missions I've made without LUA so far. If I can suggest a feature that I think could be useful, I'm going to suggest it and let the devs decide if it's worth the effort. I'll learn LUA eventually, but if it can do any of the things I've just mentioned (autonomous investigation without engagement first and foremost, autonomous self defense secondary), I'll go ahead and bite my tongue now.

[thewood1]

Have you even tried the support mission approach. btw, I am talking about AI use. I use loadouts combined with the support mission. I use these so the AI can ID and spot for missile launches all the time.

I just did one where sides were unfriendly until ships were spotted entering a zone. Then they went hostile and SSMs were launched. It worked pretty much as designed on the AI side.

[hellfish6]

Please read what I wrote.

[thewood1]

Regardless...I don't see how they don't work the way you want. I don't see the need for a mission that performs exactly they way you can do it in the game.

[snowburn]

ORIGINAL: pepolk0001

Ability to change color of grouped reference points and shaded patrol/prosecution areas. Ability to show/hide specific missions via the map display menu.

Artist's conception included.

yes, please!

[Helderik]

Merry X-mas to all!

First of all, thank you for a great overhaul of my favorite game! You guys did a fantastic job. I am a relative noob to this game, but have been strugling with a few things that I want to mention here. Maybe it can help improve this already fantastic game further. I apologize if my points have been mentioned before by others...

My humble suggestions (in no particular order) for further improvement...

1). Could you please update the override emcon settings question with a check box or something like that to prevent me from clicking this away all the time? It is not a big deal, but speeds up the game. Especially if you switch on radar and OECM, you have to click yes several times...

2). Could you grey-out options that are not available in the 'multiple sensors' window if they are not applicable? Again, only a small thing but this clarifies the game for my and perhaps other less experienced players...

3). I am struggling with the OECM ability of units. New planes like the F35 (are thought to) have really powerful OECM abilities. However, when playing with the F35, I cannot see if the OECM does anything (when not digging into all calculations). Would it be possible to specifically target an object with OECM, just like you target with a normal weapon? A plane could position itself then automatically to align its jammers with a target without having to do this by yourself. Also, besides targeting vectors, illuminating vectors, etc, it would be really nice to see ECM vectors in the same way if your ships / air craft are using ECM. This would make their use easier and traceable... This is the one thing in modern scenario's where I struggle to optimize my attacks... Further, is it possible to damage radars using ECM? If Im correct, modern ECM can damage and even destroy equipment...

4). I typically draw a no-fly zone around important enemy SAM sites if they are known to me to prevent casualties. This typically is a circle with 6-8 ref points. Besides a single ref point and a rectangle, a circle (center and radius) tool would be great... Again, no must have, but definitely nice to have...

Thank you for this great game, I learned so much about modern air/naval operations because of this game!


Erik

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Demuder
Make it so we can order weapons with active datalinks to self destruct.

Added.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: slicendice
I'd also love to see the final agility factor affected by the amount of time the aircraft spent flying defensive maneuver. But for that to work there has to be a new way to determine target detection first， ideally using probability of detection approach. So there is actually a chance for target to not evade/make belated defensive maneuver.

This has been added on the vote list as "Refine air combat evasion limitations (reduced agility)"

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Windom Earle

- 1/3rd rule option for strike missions
- amphibious/air landings [&o]

Added both.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mcp5500
It would be nice to have a Condition setting in the event editor for: Score Below x, Score above x, and score within range x-a. Thanks

Please post this on the ScenEdit poll.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: kimaera026
2 - Flight operations. Maybe it's being expanded already. That said, I'd like it more customisable, from what I'm seeing in 536. At the moment it's all automatic. Planes are assigned to either parking, hangar, pads, or flight deck, according to some mechanic i'm yet to understand. It'd be better if, in auto, it would assign the ones with a ready loadout to open parking and flight deck, rathen than hangar, which would suit reserve, maintanance, and generally inactive or readying aircraft. And i'd like the option to direct them myself. Say i'm readying a flight of two aicraft for a strike. I want them on the flight deck when their loadout is ready, so I can launch them straight away. Maybe it's already working like this, or maybe not. Or maybe the difference from hangar and flight deck is so small still that it doesnt make a difference. I don't know for sure.

IIRC this has been added in v1.06.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: KriB
I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage. The new flights should arrive, and then the RTB can happen.
It is a another factor in the fuel calculations, but I hope it is doable. This is particularly important for AEW missions, as I want complete coverage, all the time.

Added.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: jufinace20
2) Some level of control over unit doctrines in order to enhance the fidelity of the behavior in some situations. For example Libians in the 80's firing at Egyptians, their stock of expensive weapons (e.g. missiles) was limited, and their salvoes would be most probably limited in number (keeping the remaining munitions until the first rounds came by the target).
Right now the AI is always in WWIII mode, very effective, but usually wasting about half the salvo on a burning hulk.

This is coming in v1.07.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: djoos5

If I can add to this request post... here is my suggestion for a future event/trigger/action:

Action: Activate NO NAV-ZONE

It would allow us to create a NO NAV ZONE that only activates on the condition set by a trigger. I thought of this as I design my new scenario - there are three bridges crossing the Oda River and if the Player can destroy them, or one of them, it would be the trigger that would activate the NO NAV ZONE at that bridge. By doing this, the tank units trying to get to the bridge to cross would be stuck on the opposite side.

Not sure if that is an easy action to add, but if it is, it would allow for some cool results of bombing runs.

If easy can you please post this on the ScenEdit poll? Thanks!

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Vark

How about some improvements to torpedoes?
3 items in particular I can think of:
1- Wires that can be cut/damaged for a variety of reasons (i.e. turning 180 would certainly cut your wires).
2- Once the wires are cut, a torp is hot, i.e. if it sees your sub it will track and kill you if you're not careful.

Added.

3- Search patterns for torps. Clockwise, counterclockwise, snake, etc...

Already have those IIRC.