[Feature Request] Simulation additions to increase the complexity of aircraft carrier operations.

[spartan21071]

First let me say for a simulation CMANO and more recently CMO have been easily two of my most played games of the past decade.The CMO currently allows fantastic command and control over a multitude of different types of operations and I am a massive fan of the games and the work the development team does.

I do believe aircraft carrier operations can be improved a bit. Here are my ideas.

-More realistic approaches for aircraft landing on carriers. Currently I will micro altitude adjustments to allow aircraft to have more realistic approaches on their finals.

-More realistic deck movement times. I've always been impressed with the degree of detail Command has allowed for the movement of aircraft via elevators ect within the Air Facilities tab however the speeds for the movement and preparations of taking off and recently landed aircraft could be adjusted to make for more realistic carrier operations. Currently the movement and launching specifically of aircraft are a bit too fast compared to real life carrier operations.

-Bolters for CATOBAR and STOBAR equipped assets, I figure this could be LUA coded however an added game feature for on/off option to allow for the option to play with a percentage of aircraft carrier landings being bolters would be interesting. Additionally pilot skill could impact the % of chance for a bolter. In addition weather conditions near low the altitudes of the aircraft approach to the deck could increase the chance of bolters.(And sea state could factor in additionally) This feature is not a must however could be interesting to add some depth.

These are my initial ideas on how aircraft carrier operations can be enhanced within CMO.

Thank you all and have a good day.

[DavidRob0]

Good ideas Spartan - agree entirely with the proposal.
I too would like to see some wind and weather factors affecting all ships which operate aircraft, especially wind direction and speed (and consequently the speed and course of the carrier/launching vessel), and sea state which at times prevents the operation of aircraft - especially on small ships.

Wind and weather can have the effect of tying a carrier to a specific area when conducting large scale operations, restricting its movements and making it more easily detectable.

[spartan21071]

Hope this post doesn't get buried in Tech Support...

[mikerohan]

I like those ideas, specially deck movement times and weather affecting carrier ops.

[Primarchx]

Is there really something positive these features would lend the game? I don't really want to play a carrier deck management game (these exist, BTW) while also commanding a complex air-land-sea battle in real time. The most I'd like improved is the ability to prioritize a/c I want on the deck and in the hangar. Since I don't manually manage carrier landings I'm not sure what value more detail to carrier landings, to include bolters, would lend the experience.

[thewood1]

There are games out there that deal specifically with deck management. I can't fathom why you would want it in an operationally focused game.

[spartan21071]

My suggestion works to better simulate key aspects of naval aviation that is currently missing. Currently aircraft carriers are correctly represented as a movable floating airfield. However key aspects of naval aviation are not fully fleshed out within the game to represent the difficulties of naval aviation. My suggestions would assist in balancing out factors such as the difficulties present while operating aviation at sea, specifically in rough weather. Additionally in regards to the the aircraft movement times suggestion, this would better simulate the flow of traffic, off and on the ship.

Additionally, the question is asked why would Command need to simulate these factors of naval aviation? My question would be with the best operational air/naval sim available why would these features not be necessary? In a game where often operations comprise of a single CVBG, I would think these elements would give a degree of depth to the game that could impact many of the currently made missions. Additionally suggestions such as I have posed would only enhance the operational part of the game, considering the unpredictable nature of weather and its effect on carrier operations.

[thewood1]

Again, since we are being repetitive, I'll point out that the deck management and landing cycles are built into the launch, land, and turn-around times. This has been explained a couple times by the devs in the past.

[spartan21071]

I respect your point of view. However some have agreed that these changes would enhance the realism of naval aviation operations. Its up to the devs and their vision for the future of the game. I would just hope they consider these suggestions.

All the best.

[Rory Noonan]

Feature request added. #0013614

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: apache85

Feature request added. #0013614

Please make it optional. In my view it is difficult to come up with a more useless feature than micromanaging aircraft carrier flight decks. Think of it, different layouts in different ships and situations where centreline elevators are involved, the port/forward elevator on the Forrestals that cannot be used during landing operations etc... Making it realistic means making it complex and the added complexity adds nothing to the simulation.

-C

Edit: Corrected Forrestal class offending elevator location

[Primarchx]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

ORIGINAL: apache85

Feature request added. #0013614

Please make it optional. In my view it is difficult to come up with a more useless feature than micromanaging aircraft carrier flight decks. Think of it, different layouts in different ships and situations where centreline elevators are involved, the port/forward elevator on the Forrestals that cannot be used during landing operations etc... Making it realistic means making it complex and the added complexity adds nothing to the simulation.

-C

Edit: Corrected Forrestal class offending elevator location

Seconded.

[thewood1]

Obviously not just my point of view. Hopefully the devs don't waste too much time on it. There are plenty of other things that are documented higher priority.

[Annapolis1981]

+1

[spartan21071]

Hello Randomizer,

I never suggested anything about micromanaging aircraft carrier flight decks. My suggestions are tweaks to the already existing flight operations gui. I am suggesting for timing tweaks, in addition to optional features such as bolters, which I clearly stated can be an on/off game feature.

Additionally, as I stated naval aviation operations are currently too simple, specifically no need for navigation based on wind for takeoff/landing of aircraft considerations, ect. But suggestions such as these help to flesh out naval aviation operations in order to clearly portray their operational considerations that are clearly not the same as land based aircraft.


Regards.

[Randomizer]

Spartan21071, since you decide to make this personal...

You want the program to micromanage deck handling, which eats cycles and unless each class of carrier, in different eras and with crew quality incorporated receives a unique treatment, the system is necessarily generalized. Which is exactly the status quo but you just don't like the numbers that the developers settled upon as reasonable. Reading comprehension is not the problem here but ridiculous ideas need to be called out for what they are.

Of all the many dumb CMANO/CMO feature demands from the community over the years, yours is high in the top two.

-C

[spartan21071]

Hello Randomizer,

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is up to the developers on what their vision is for their game.

But my suggestions are clear and some support them.

Added: Also, the game already micromanages deck handling, my suggestion is to make more realistic the movement times, from hanger to catapult positions ect. I've been doing research based on footage and other sources about approximately what those times could be adjusted to.

All the best.

[Primarchx]

spartan21071 - I can appreciate having a passion for making Command a better game. The issue as I see it is that this is a tactical game played at tactical->strategic scales. When I hit RTB on an aircraft I don't really care about how it flies its' approach for landing. If it bolters, that's okay I guess, I might notice that but I probably won't. As for deck movement times, there are already increments in place. Would it be a matter of tweaking those to more 'realistic' levels? If so what are those levels?

In the end I think you have to balance realism navel gazing with systems that are good approximations because you're dealing with a wide gamut of players with various understanding of the milieu. You're also impacting the players OODA loop if they also have to deal with additional flight operations while also dealing with mission imperatives. So in my mind you need to focus a game on it's core activities and be careful of distracting or diluting that experience with tangential chrome.

[spartan21071]

One thing is the game represents combat, munitions, sensor and fuel management to a detailed level. Game systems could be used to help represent naval aviation operations as distinctly different than land-based operations.

Personally I am content with the current game systems, as is, in this regard, but I do believe there could be opportunities for fleshing out of naval aviation operations and associated game systems. LUA scripting from the basic level understanding I have can potentially engage some of these elements. I could be wrong but I think some have experimented with this already.


Regards

[boogabooga]

High spartan. Here is a LUA code to do weather-dependent bolters. It should be the action that fires if an aircraft enters a rectangle behind you A/C carrier with its RPs moving relative to said A/C carrier (bearing dependent).

Makes carrier landing easy on a good day, but carrier ops basically get shut down by a "hurricane". So, yes, IMHO there is some value to this even in an "operational" context as it makes weather a factor to consider beyond just a sensor distorter. This code was only made possible by the LUA API's "hard" Unassign feature that came out a few patches ago.

Code is even smart enough to remember what mission your planes were on
Comment out the ScenEdit_MsgBox calls if they get annoying. Enjoy.

Code: Select all

local approachAC = UnitX()
 
 math.randomseed( os.time() )
 local weather = ScenEdit_GetWeather()
 local bolterChance = 10+10*weather.seastate
 local roll = math.random(0,100)  
 
 local missionTemp = approachAC.mission  
 
 if approachAC.condition == "On final approach" and roll <= bolterChance then  
 	ScenEdit_SetUnit({side = approachAC.side, unitname = approachAC.name,  unassign = true})
 	ScenEdit_SetUnit({side = approachAC.side, unitname = approachAC.name,  RTB = true, mission = missionTemp.guid })
 	ScenEdit_MsgBox (approachAC.name.." waves off".."   "..roll,1)
 else 
               ScenEdit_MsgBox (approachAC.name.." good approach".."   "..roll,1)
 end