CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[DONNIE67]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67
planes that are airborne should be added to the flight ops screen.

??? Why?

[DONNIE67]

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67

Hi. Thank you for reaching out.

Ideally the air ops display should provide a one stop, all inclusive view of the status of all air assets uassigned to the base or carrier. I have been jotting down units as a work around for larger scenarios in instances prior to formalizing a mission.

While the airborne units could be indirectly found by using the orbat or mission editor, I have found this to be a bit more out of the way than a simple status flight ops screen which gives an excellent accounting of all units to begin with.

I also vaguely recall such an indication in an earlier version of cmano. The but "airborne" status came immediately after "taking off" and then disappeared from the status board right after.

[DONNIE67]

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67

Hi. Thank you for reaching out.

Ideally the air ops display should provide a one stop, all inclusive view of the status of all air assets uassigned to the base or carrier. I have been jotting down units as a work around for larger scenarios in instances prior to formalizing a mission.

While the airborne units could be indirectly found by using the orbat or mission editor, I have found this to be a bit more out of the way than a simple status flight ops screen which gives an excellent accounting of all units to begin with.

I also vaguely recall such an indication in an earlier version of cmano. The but "airborne" status came immediately after "taking off" and then disappeared from the status board right after.

[DONNIE67]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67
planes that are airborne should be added to the flight ops screen.

??? Why?

[DONNIE67]

Hi.

I apologize for the multiple re=posts above. I got a little confused with the quote and reply functions.

In any event it is a followup to a previous feature request that was already responded to by Demetris. I responded with additional information that may have gotten lost beacuse I didnt use the response quote originally.. Thank you again..and best wishes.

[TitaniumTrout]

Could we get the ability to add Folders to the Quick Battle rather like the scenario browser?



Rather like this so we can nest folders in the Quick Battles folder.

[vicmajols]

Hi, what about choosing the color of the interface (gray/white background) ??? The background in CMO makes the linked text (in blue) almost unreadable. The old CMANO, with a lighter background was much better and readble without any problem..

Cheers.

VM

[ronmexico111]

I can only vote for one but the features I would personally like are a Time-on-target automatic strike generator UI, Scriptless intermittent sensor settings (I think Harpoon had this but it's been several years since I played that game), and Enable borders/coastlines at close-in zoom. I would add multiplayer as well but hey, who doesn't.

[ronmexico111]

ORIGINAL: KranS

Hello

Will it be possible to bring back the CMANO stile semitransparent raw text message log to CMO?

I am accustomed to the old Raw text message log, and I want to watch it without Separating the window.

If adding these features is hard, at least adding an option to switch to raw text view without Separating the window will be wonderful.

Thank you.

I would vote for this as well.

[kfarley215]

There is no question that a TOT indicator for selected aircraft for a strike mission is useful in order to plan multiple strike missions in a coordinated fashion to address "peel the onion" layered strategic operations. However, when combined with Air Refueling then solving Refueling logic is a pre-requisite. I have the following re-fueling logic recommendations:

1. Refueling logic should be broken down into "phases" so that each phase can have appropriate logic. Currently the logic is "did the refueling trigger fire based on % available fuel?" If so, "chase the nearest tanker within the parameter of which mission the tanker belongs to, based on the refueling properties of the base mission." I believe I am stating this accurately but please correct me if I haven't.

2. Refueling phases are as follows. Phase 1: do I have a refueling solution already provided? (Either a tanker assigned to trail me in my mission or a tanker assigned to a Support misson.)
a. If I have trailing refuel solution, then wait for refuel trigger and initiate "chase the tanker" (the current refuel behavior).
b. If I have been assigned a Refuel mission in the mission properties, then add a Way Point (like Strike Missions) that map to the Refuel Zone of the assigned Refuel mission. Once the waypoint is reached within the center or perimeter of the Refuel zone (whichever the Devs prefer) only then initiate the "chase the tanker" logic.
c. If neither of the 2 conditions above, (the refuel mission is to be the closest available) then the Phase 1 (find a refuel solution) should occur prior to the "low fuel" trigger and should be something like "forecasted refuel tanker" starting at about 15% prior to refuel trigger fires. "Forecasted refuel solution" should evaluate the universe of available tankers based on range and flight plans. The aircraft knows its own flight plan and it is reasonable to suppose that the aircraft knows the flight plan of eligible tankers. The set of "forecasted refuel solutions" should be ordered by nearest forecasted aircraft to current flight plans (with estimate for tankers circling a refuel area). Given an ordered set of refuel solutions, updated every 5% of fuel used to stay current, the final choice of refuel solution will be to choose from the forecasted set based on available fuel and refuel queue of the tanker.

I believe the 3 rules above replicate the decision making process that would be considered "common sense" for refueling, but of course I am not a trained Refueling CWO. I was however a Logistics office in the US Army Communications Command and since I've been a software engineer for many years so this describes logic that I think might replicate what I do now as a player of CMO.

Thanks for the great Sim, looking forward to many years of enjoying it!

[Grazyn]

Edit: already in the list

[TitaniumTrout]

In the CMO PE stream today I saw that the cursor data is displayed near the message log. Many times the current info can obscure what you're trying to look at, especially if there's a few units close together.



I'd love to see an option to turn this on in CMO.

[Grazyn]

ORIGINAL: TitaniumTrout

In the CMO PE stream today I saw that the cursor data is displayed near the message log. Many times the current info can obscure what you're trying to look at, especially if there's a few units close together.



I'd love to see an option to turn this on in CMO.

Game option->map display->map cursor databox visibility->show on bottom

[TitaniumTrout]

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

ORIGINAL: TitaniumTrout

In the CMO PE stream today I saw that the cursor data is displayed near the message log. Many times the current info can obscure what you're trying to look at, especially if there's a few units close together.



I'd love to see an option to turn this on in CMO.

Game option->map display->map cursor databox visibility->show on bottom

You're a scholar and a gentleman, thanks!

[Aaabcwea]

I want to request minor user interface upgrades! There are a lot of small user interface problems that have been around since the launch of Command Modern Operations, for instance the following:

I wish the start screen wasn't full-screen, using the scroll wheel on the time compression button generally does not work, but when clicking on stuff it is generally possible for the "cursor" to get stuck there and when you scroll to zoom on the map all of a sudden you are flicking through an option somewhere, the shortcut buttons should fit in the existing top bar instead of needing their own bar, the bottom bar (which hosts only the group and time step buttons) should also be integrated into the top bar (giving us more vertical space), in the top-right corner there is a 1-pixel misalignment when the shortcut bar is hidden, in full-screen the scroll bar does not align with the right edge of the screen, the message log options are split between "view" and "game" instead of all being in one place, in the right-hand sidebar it is not possible to collapse "unit status", while un-collapsing information there is a temporary text blur, an option to disable images in the database viewer would be nice, the game option "show 'game speed' button on toolbar in main window" appears to do nothing, also sometimes in-game when I point the cursor at a ship an information box with an image and stuff shows up and I have no idea why, and finally, there is the message log: I want options back for 1) a transparent log, 2) raw text by default, and finally, if I set the message log to a separate window I want it to stay a separate window until I close the client.

(Sorry for a wall of text, I will attempt to parse it into a bullet list. My point is I think it is time for a "second pass" of the user interface)

[DWReese]

I would like to see better defensive maneuvering (evasive actions) by planes when they are under attack and trying to egress from the area. (Corkscrew of death)

[DWReese]

I would like to see units (mostly this applies to ground units) be able to use some form of defensive smoke for concealment, and to interfere with the opposition's ability to see and fire on them (i.e laser, LOS).

[Rory Noonan]

From https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#4822905

ORIGINAL: rbsj
I like much others love to make our own scenarios and edit (for what is possible) plataforms, more properly, naval plataforms.

Something that could be awesome and I hope not be a overload of work is to give units [FACILITIES and PROPERTIES] as we give units COMMS.

For instance something important to me is using the replenish and refuel a lot to simulate the importance of logistics. But most of the times the Units I want cannot be replenish because it lacks that property. That could be done in the file as we give comms to a unit. For instance give the property REFUEL FROM STARBOARD.

Other thing would be give ships facilities like an Hangar for 2 Medium Aircraft or a Pad. There were some nice ideas during the 80's and 90's of transforming some Destroyers in DDH (Helicopter Destroyer), differently from what is now done by the Japanese Izumo LOL. So if we could simple add a facility like we add a COMM to a unit that could be good.

What could give a little more work is to give aircraft properties like Fly-by-wire or Head Mounted Display. But that would be awesome.

[Fido81]

In light of this interesting article (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... a-big-deal) I would be curious to see how issuing orders that are executed under radio silence changes the operational battlespace.

Would the dev team please consider expanding the already-implemented no comms functionality beyond submarines to enable ships, aircraft, and ground units to operate under either total radio silence, or perhaps even to communicate solely within their group of units or mission? I could see this working really well as a doctrine setting.

[alphali]

ORIGINAL: Aaabcwea

also sometimes in-game when I point the cursor at a ship an information box with an image and stuff shows up and I have no idea why

If you hold ctrl button and hover a unit a box with unit description will appear.