So people care more about local weather than for multiplayer? C'mon dudes.[&:] I recognise though what kind of problems design of multiplayer mode would bring. I have a feeling Real-Time style with small scenarios would work just fine, just like in Harpoon 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTyLseW_zI4
CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Weather
In addition to Local Weather Fronts, I'd love to SEE the weather as a toggled overlay. Rain cells, ceilings < 300, < 1,000, or < 5,000. Etc.
In addition to Local Weather Fronts, I'd love to SEE the weather as a toggled overlay. Rain cells, ceilings < 300, < 1,000, or < 5,000. Etc.
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
In addition to Local Weather Fronts, I'd love to SEE the weather as a toggled overlay. Rain cells, ceilings < 300, < 1,000, or < 5,000. Etc.
Bump!
“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”
Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)
Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Question, and if the answer is no, consider it a feature request... [;)]
In COW you introduced what you call cargo operations, but what is really units, not cargo. What I would consider cargo is munitions delivery to resupply bases or carriers. Is that something you've added in or are considering for CMO?
In COW you introduced what you call cargo operations, but what is really units, not cargo. What I would consider cargo is munitions delivery to resupply bases or carriers. Is that something you've added in or are considering for CMO?
Clear skies and tailwinds,
Chuck
Chuck
-
ProdigyofMilitaryPride
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:54 pm
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Minor request for certain nations and geographical features to be accurate. As I've noticed in the CWDB, Vietnam is apparently already unified when from the 1950's to April 1975, that wasn't the case. And could West and East Germany be properly labeled than being just labeled Germany despite the boundaries being accurate until the reunification, please? Thanks. If it can't be done, I apologize for asking something that could prove lucrative.
"The courageous must protect freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Anything built by human hands can be destroyed. This is no exception." - Kei "Edge" Nagase, Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War
"Anything built by human hands can be destroyed. This is no exception." - Kei "Edge" Nagase, Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
ORIGINAL: Dragon029
Although the poll option descriptions can be found in the posts above, it might be best if they're all neatly edited into the original post for clarity.
Good idea, thanks! We'll just need a bit of time to populate this.
-
ParachuteProne
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:35 pm
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Since new features to vote on are still being added how do we change our vote ?
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Didn't get any answer to my question. May be the reason is in my horrible English skill.)
Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so.
Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so.
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
ORIGINAL: Scar79
Didn't get any answer to my question. May be the reason is in my horrible English skill.)
Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so.
Your request is effectively item #1 on the poll list.
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Hi,
Unfortunately, it is not possible to recast your vote as it appears our forum software does not allow for it.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to recast your vote as it appears our forum software does not allow for it.
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Ah, thank you very much, Dimitris, for your answer! This is really great news that making my excitement even stronger...while it seemed couldn't be stronger than it already is!ORIGINAL: Dimitris
ORIGINAL: Scar79
Didn't get any answer to my question. May be the reason is in my horrible English skill.)
Or does AMP already include functionality for cruise missiles route generation and ETA coordination, within one salvo? I hope so.
Your request is effectively item #1 on the poll list.
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
It's not up there but more sonar data would be nice and make ASW ops more engaging. Realtime info about platform self-noise, contact sound strength and sensor acuity at current speed would all be very useful in prosecuting sonar targets.
-
guanotwozero
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:53 am
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Well, I went for AMP-ToT.
If this becomes a prospect, I'd suggest having its own forum section so we can throw in ideas about what it might do in more detail.
That way we might narrow it down to under 50 separate designs!
If this becomes a prospect, I'd suggest having its own forum section so we can throw in ideas about what it might do in more detail.
That way we might narrow it down to under 50 separate designs!
-
Scorpion86
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:19 pm
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Well, I'm just gonna copy-paste some of my suggestions from a previous thread:
1 - A way of tweaking an aircraft's refuelling logic
I can't count the number of times I was in the middle of a strike when the attacking aircraft decided to go refuel all on it's own and fly 300 miles to the nearest tanker. And when I stopped it manually, it would go back to refuelling.
Today, when I want to control a single aircraft's refuelling logic, all you have is the "allow refuelling/do not refuel" drop down menu. But when you have a mission, you can tell the aircraft on patrol to only refuel from tankers of mission X, to only refuel if there's a tanker within Y miles, or to only refuel when you're down to W% of fuel. That would be nice to have for aircraft not assigned to a mission as well.
Basicly I want the options from the menu in the attached picture in the Doctrine options, with the "search for tanker" option expressed in "BINGO + percentage fuel remaining" instead of just "percent fuel remaining".
2 - Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm increments
When I was play-testing my latest scenario, For The Honour Of The Republic (*cough*shameless self-promotion*cough*), I had Portuguese AF A-7Ps armed with AIM-9L-1 missiles going against Yak-38M Forgers armed with R-60M Aphids.
The AIM-9L-1 has a 10nm range, but the WRA only allows me to set the automatic firing range between the full 10nm or 5nm, nothing else. If I fired the AIM-9s at 10nm, the Forgers would shake them, if I fired them at 5nm, my fighters would be close enough to be shot at by the Aphids. If I could set the auto-fire distance to 75% of the range, that would be ideal.
Having the ranges of weapons in the WRA menu set in 5nm increments may be more intuitive, but it penalises scenarios using shorter-ranged weapons, like mid-to-late cold war fighter duels.
Another option is a sliding scale: increments of 2nm for ranges from 0 to 20nm, increments of 5nm for ranges from 20 to 100nm, and of 10nm for ranges >100nm.
3 - Unit "Scoreboard"
This is the least serious request of the three, but what the hell, dreaming pays no tax, so here we go:
It would be neat to have some sort of scoreboard during the mission to see which unit behaved better during the scenario. Things like, best ace, best ground attacker, unit that suppressed more SAM sites, etc, etc...
And I add another thing I thought of since:
4 - More scriptless trigger/action options
I came upon this when designing my own scenario. A very simple thing I wanted to do in my scenario was changing a side's EMCON. But sadly I couldn't do that without LUA. The "change EMCON" action was literally a one-line script.
I know this may appear deceptively simple for a layman, but it would make mission-making simpler for people without coding knowledge.
1 - A way of tweaking an aircraft's refuelling logic
I can't count the number of times I was in the middle of a strike when the attacking aircraft decided to go refuel all on it's own and fly 300 miles to the nearest tanker. And when I stopped it manually, it would go back to refuelling.
Today, when I want to control a single aircraft's refuelling logic, all you have is the "allow refuelling/do not refuel" drop down menu. But when you have a mission, you can tell the aircraft on patrol to only refuel from tankers of mission X, to only refuel if there's a tanker within Y miles, or to only refuel when you're down to W% of fuel. That would be nice to have for aircraft not assigned to a mission as well.
Basicly I want the options from the menu in the attached picture in the Doctrine options, with the "search for tanker" option expressed in "BINGO + percentage fuel remaining" instead of just "percent fuel remaining".
2 - Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm increments
When I was play-testing my latest scenario, For The Honour Of The Republic (*cough*shameless self-promotion*cough*), I had Portuguese AF A-7Ps armed with AIM-9L-1 missiles going against Yak-38M Forgers armed with R-60M Aphids.
The AIM-9L-1 has a 10nm range, but the WRA only allows me to set the automatic firing range between the full 10nm or 5nm, nothing else. If I fired the AIM-9s at 10nm, the Forgers would shake them, if I fired them at 5nm, my fighters would be close enough to be shot at by the Aphids. If I could set the auto-fire distance to 75% of the range, that would be ideal.
Having the ranges of weapons in the WRA menu set in 5nm increments may be more intuitive, but it penalises scenarios using shorter-ranged weapons, like mid-to-late cold war fighter duels.
Another option is a sliding scale: increments of 2nm for ranges from 0 to 20nm, increments of 5nm for ranges from 20 to 100nm, and of 10nm for ranges >100nm.
3 - Unit "Scoreboard"
This is the least serious request of the three, but what the hell, dreaming pays no tax, so here we go:
It would be neat to have some sort of scoreboard during the mission to see which unit behaved better during the scenario. Things like, best ace, best ground attacker, unit that suppressed more SAM sites, etc, etc...
And I add another thing I thought of since:
4 - More scriptless trigger/action options
I came upon this when designing my own scenario. A very simple thing I wanted to do in my scenario was changing a side's EMCON. But sadly I couldn't do that without LUA. The "change EMCON" action was literally a one-line script.
I know this may appear deceptively simple for a layman, but it would make mission-making simpler for people without coding knowledge.
- Attachments
-
- UntitledCJPEG.jpg (49.26 KiB) Viewed 1513 times
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
TacView
I've never used it, but it looks like a HUGE improvement/benefit to CMO, bringing the player into the furball...if they so desire.
I understand it is set up no fog-of-war right now. I'd like to see three layers of "knowledge":
1. God's Eye: as it is now, with total knowledge of every unit.
2. Player's View: make it so only units the player knows about are in view.
3. Unit View: only what THAT unit sees is in view.
By "see", "view", or "knowledge", I'm talking about whatever level of observation is available.
The difference is this: Imagine friendly units A, B, and C fighting enemy units W, X, Y, and Z.
Each unit only observes (data link, ESM, radar, IR, eyeball, whatever) one unit; A = X, B = Y, and C = Z. W is an enemy unit thus far unobservered.
In God's Eye, the player will see all seven.
In Player's View, the player will see A, B, C, X, Y, and Z.
In Unit View, the player sees NOTHING until he selects a unit. If he selects unit A, the only enemy he will see is X. If B, then Y. Etc.
FWIW.
I've never used it, but it looks like a HUGE improvement/benefit to CMO, bringing the player into the furball...if they so desire.
I understand it is set up no fog-of-war right now. I'd like to see three layers of "knowledge":
1. God's Eye: as it is now, with total knowledge of every unit.
2. Player's View: make it so only units the player knows about are in view.
3. Unit View: only what THAT unit sees is in view.
By "see", "view", or "knowledge", I'm talking about whatever level of observation is available.
The difference is this: Imagine friendly units A, B, and C fighting enemy units W, X, Y, and Z.
Each unit only observes (data link, ESM, radar, IR, eyeball, whatever) one unit; A = X, B = Y, and C = Z. W is an enemy unit thus far unobservered.
In God's Eye, the player will see all seven.
In Player's View, the player will see A, B, C, X, Y, and Z.
In Unit View, the player sees NOTHING until he selects a unit. If he selects unit A, the only enemy he will see is X. If B, then Y. Etc.
FWIW.
-
burningphoneix
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:39 pm
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
How can you change Tacview's parameters? Isn't it a different product?
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
I'd really love to have a search tool for the cargo list.
-
sluggy2010
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:09 am
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
With regards to the fog-of-war for the TACVIEW export ( which I did vote for ) can we make it an option not just "On" as there are still uses where leaving it in a God's eye view are still useful as mentioned below
(above? ) in someone else's post..
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
Hi,
I've voted for FOW on TacView.
Could I also suggest that it would be very nice if the Tacview colours and the CMO map icon colours were in line.
Not sure if you can achieve this as it seems to me CMOs colours are correct (Blue friendly forces, red hostile etc) and maybe you can't control the colours displayed in TacView.
But it's quite offputting to see enemy forces displayed as friendly on TacView and vice versa
I've voted for FOW on TacView.
Could I also suggest that it would be very nice if the Tacview colours and the CMO map icon colours were in line.
Not sure if you can achieve this as it seems to me CMOs colours are correct (Blue friendly forces, red hostile etc) and maybe you can't control the colours displayed in TacView.
But it's quite offputting to see enemy forces displayed as friendly on TacView and vice versa
RE: CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests
AMP integrating tankers would be ginormous!