RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

I'd like to have the ability to apply the 1/3 rule to Ferry Flight missions.

Thanks!

Added.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

An extra filter on the database viewer for the type of a/c, ship, etc. Example, pulling up list of all a/c, filter on 'Electronic warfare' would only show those a/c of that type.

Added.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I also had an idea regarding to message log too. Separate these messages into catalogs based on their colors, and player can close the specific catalog(s) when necessary:

Added.

[Mgellis]

I'd like to suggest something. One of the complaints I hear on the Armchair General forums (assuming these people are not simply Herman's sock puppets) is that it is "unrealistic" to limit aircraft speeds to 950 knots, etc.

I propose a new realism setting toggle...you can either use "realistic aircraft values" or "theoretical aircraft values" .

This way, if people really feel strongly that they should be able to fly an F-15 into combat at Mach 2, they can do it. I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement...add a new field in the database for "theoretical maximum speed" and then add a value for each aircraft?

Anyway, thanks for considering this idea.

[snowburn]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

I'd like to suggest something. One of the complaints I hear on the Armchair General forums (assuming these people are not simply Herman's sock puppets) is that it is "unrealistic" to limit aircraft speeds to 950 knots, etc.

I propose a new realism setting toggle...you can either use "realistic aircraft values" or "theoretical aircraft values" .

This way, if people really feel strongly that they should be able to fly an F-15 into combat at Mach 2, they can do it. I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement...add a new field in the database for "theoretical maximum speed" and then add a value for each aircraft?

Anyway, thanks for considering this idea.

i think its a great idea, but it will fit better under ROE/EMCON settings, something like:
Allow max theoretical speeds: OFF[default]/ON

if this is set to ON, after landing the aircraft will automaticaly switch to MAINTENANCE loadout and can't fly again.

[thewood1]

I, for one, wouldn't spend lot of time worrying about the Armchair General forums. They are not very active, they are populated by a lot of people who have no concept of reality from playing board games, and they tend to be a heavy majority of people kicked out of other forums. If I could vote on it, it would 20-21 on the list for resources.

I saw one guy from there complaining about something and his point of reference was that he had been playing wargames for 20 years.

[Dysta]

A sort of "difficulty slider" like this about the data value in both optimistic, realistic and sub-standard:

Inferior (15-30% lower than original DB value)
Sub-standard (0-15% lower than original DB value)
Nominal (same as DB value)
Theroical (0-15% higher than original DB value)
Superior (15-30% higher than original DB value)

It can be adjusted and applied to a specific side(s), or override an entire scenario with adjustable value setting. I also like to suggest the "reliability slider" that works likely the same, but only for the reliability like random accident from launching or MIA (malfunctioning/missing in action) instead of the weapon performance.

[thewood1]

That sounds easy.

[FoxZz]

Hello,

As a very low priority addition to gameplay, I would propose to add a veterancy system for the duration of a scenario that could be extended to a campaign.

The simplest way to implement would be to increase the veterancy of a unit by one step when this unit kills an ennemy unit. Thus this may be too simple with units reaching the ace level quiet quickly. So maybe several kills and/or combat action (evading missile, time spent engaging ennemies, etc, all not ebing equals in terms of veterancy).

A nice thing to add would also be killing list for each unit implied in the scenario, it could be displayed in its shortcut, it would be in the spirit of the kill marking drawed on aircrafts and ships :

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/240_b.jpg
http://www.hazegray.org/features/bb55/bb55_53.jpg
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-mideast/israel/af/pics/101-2.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0H0v1Yz74x62_ERjs_ONWPDtlA9T90iPDdLnV5uH_pFxZYCZxyQ

[Mgellis]

I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement, but I had an idea for a new posture.

[Dark Blue/Friendly But No Communications] This side is not automatically in communication with you, and does not automatically know where you are, but considers you friendly and would view someone attacking you as hostile. You cannot see them automatically and you do not know if they are friendly until they are close enough to be identified. Neither of you can share information--they cannot see what you see, the way an allied unit can. You could in theory fire on them by accident. They could in theory fire on you by accident. Once they are identified, of course, you can no longer fire on each other by accident.

They would either show up as yellow (unidentified) or dark blue (identified as friendly but cannot share information).

This might be one way to model submarines, covert operations units, etc.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for considering it.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

They would either show up as yellow (unidentified) or dark blue (identified as friendly but cannot share information).

Why not using square (not diamond which is for unfriendly and hostile postures) like neutral? I think it will easily remember that it is on your side, but not involved or share anything with it.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

They would either show up as yellow (unidentified) or dark blue (identified as friendly but cannot share information).

Why not using square (not diamond which is for unfriendly and hostile postures) like neutral? I think it will easily remember that it is on your side, but not involved or share anything with it.

So either yellow square (unknown), green square (known but neutral), or blue square (friendly but no communications)? That could work. I was just trying to figure out how to model something that is "more than neutral"--if it KNOWS you are there and that you're in trouble, it will go after the bad guys, but in most cases it will be on its own, not in communication with you, not knowing everything you know, and it won't automatically know if you are being attacked, etc.

[Dysta]

Exactly what I thought. The only question is does US or NATO have such familiar destination to be realistically implemented in CMANO. If not, adding blue square would be little confusing for military servicemen presenting it.

[corporal342]

I would like to ask for a tweak to the formation editor. A list of formations to choose from would be nice. Simple line ahead, line abreast, echelon right/left, wedge, and so on. This would make switching a formation to line ahead to form a gun line or transit a mine field easier. Another tweak would be the ability to designate positions in the formation by bearing and distance from lead, or adjacent ship. This would make setting up a tight box convoy a snap.

Just some food for thought.

Thanks

[Excroat3]

In the mission planner, there is already a "keep at least ___ number of aircraft airborne", but can we have a "keep at most ____ number of aircraft airborne"? I have had instances where I try to set up an AEW mission and let the number to 1, and all the planes will take off, because they are all ready. Having the option that I just proposed would eliminate that problem. Thanks for considering!

[ColonelMolerat]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but it may be better suited here:

Could there be an option to quickly show/hide custom layers?

At the moment, if you want to hide custom layers so you can see the relief layer (for instance), you have to manually unload each custom layer, then when you want them back, manually reload each one.

Custom layers are great, but switching like this can be a pain. I'd love to be able to toggle them on/off when I want to see a different layer.

[ColonelMolerat]

Eep. I was the last post here too. Hope I'm not being too demanding!

Could there be a way to set a unit in a mission so that it won't leave the patrol area, but it WILL shoot outside of it?

For example, I want to set a zone outside of enemy AA range. I want my planes to stay within this zone, but still be able to shoot at contacts they see who are within the enemy AA area, if those enemies get within range.

Perhaps it could work like this if you have a patrol area away from the AA, but a prosecution zone extending within it, and 'Investigate contacts outside of patrol area' is switched off? At the moment, having a prosecution area with 'Investigate contacts outside of patrol area' turned off is no different to having no prosecution area, is it?

---

Also, could it be possible to disable the dropping of sonobuoys on an ASW mission (perhaps under the doctrine window, like with 'Use Nuclear Weapons'?), so that only dipping sonar etc is used - that way the buoys can be saved for when they're most needed.

[CCIP-subsim]

Two quick suggestions/requests on game mechanics:

1) I really like the weapon calculation logs, but I've had to turn them off because they ruin the "fog of war" in many scenarios - because even if you're launching at a suspicious Goblin, it'll immediately tell you that the torpedo is attacking "Biological Tuna Fishes", which immediately removes all ambiguity.
Would it be possible to add an option to remove/obscure target IDs from weapon/attack calculation logs?

2) Pulse rates, sync and "high fidelity" mode: so, I'm not sure if it's just my particular processor (which is a high-end i5), but one issue I have is that while my system runs the "high fidelity" real time mode just fine and at a good refresh rate, it ends up running in slow-mo - 1 second of game time lasts 2-3 seconds of real time. Accelerated time is still accelerated. Turning off high fidelity, I get a 1 sec=1 sec time ratio exactly, but lose the smooth refresh rate. Is it possible to add some sort of tweak, even a possibility of having 1/2 the "high fidelity" pulse rate, to force the game to stay in "real time" rather than "slow mo"?

[JPFisher55]

IMO, if the player could select which tanker aircraft an a/c needing refuel to use would solve most refueling issues with a/c. Then, the player, not the AI, would be responsible for difficult refueling missions.

[gattomatto]

Didn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere, so I'm voting to have configurable hotkeys.

Default ones are difficult to use on a non pc-standard, non us-layout keyboard.
I have a laptop and, as an example, can't get the increase-decrease time compression shortcuts. Pretty annoying.

I'd really have a mean to assign my own.

ciao
Guido