CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[thewood1]

Can we get the ability to set altitude for formation station. I sometimes use the formation editor for flight formation and dual submarine groups. Being able to set the altitude or depth would make that much more effective.

[macinlew]

So I got Parallels Desktop to run the ARM version of Windows on my MacBook Air (Apple Silicon M1) to run CMO and it actually works! Barely playable on the ASW quick battle with only 3 units but it works!

Hats off to all the Microsoft, Apple, Parallels, and CMO developers! Map scrolling is almost as fast as on my intel Mac booted into Windows!

I realize it's likely not worth it but any chance of seeing an ARM binary?

Microsoft does have an ARM Surface Pro in its second generation and I hear they are working on their own ARM processor for future computers.

[thewood1]

The ARM on the Surface is a very low powered affair. Not only is it a low end processor, but its hobbled by the power plan that Surfaces force on the CPU. It might be able to get CMO to start, but I would imagine you get to a scenario limit pretty quickly.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: macinlew
So I got Parallels Desktop to run the ARM version of Windows on my MacBook Air (Apple Silicon M1) to run CMO and it actually works! Barely playable on the ASW quick battle with only 3 units but it works!

That sounds very impressive, actually! Two layers of emulation if I'm not mistaken (MacOS --> Windows and ARM --> x86). Thanks for the heads up.

[Tochka]

Perhaps not a feature, but i'd like to see the ability to toggle the visibility of the green status bar over every unit, in large scenarios I sometimes make an "observer" side to switch to just to get rid of them.

[mikerohan]

ORIGINAL: FMBluecher

An option to set "Keep [X] number of units on station" as an alternative to "of each class." This would really help in situations where I'm managing a multinational force that has a ton of different units that do the same thing, I need only one total on station at any time, but I have only one or two of most types.

It would also help with patrol missions in a number of scenarios when you have a large variety of airplane types that can fulfill the same function and you want to have all of them available for the same tasking, but you don't need as many as 1/3 of them in the air at once.

Happy New Year!

I'd also love to see this! there are many situations where you have several heterogeneous aircraft that can fill the same role or be set to the same mission, and I don't want one of each class airborne. I just want ONE airborne [:D][;)]

[p1t1o]

In the event editor, during creation of triggers/actions etc. there are several numerical items that can have values chosen from a list.

One of these is a regular timer that pulses a trigger at regular intervals can have values set of 1s, 5s, 15s etc. etc.

Is it possible to make values like these user-defined instead of a pull-down list?

Thanks,
P

[stww2]

I was playing Caribbean Fury 2 yesterday, and repeatedly lured OPFOR fighters within the range of my CVBG's SAM and shot them down. This got me thinking: obviously, realistically, no one is going to keep having fighters charge into known SAM traps unless it is truly necessary. We, as players, often take great care to keep our aircraft away from known threats and will take steps to mitigate the danger. But the AI doesn't know any better, and, even if the location of a SAM battery is known, will charge into range if an enemy aircraft is within its prosecution zone. Now, for ground-based SAMs, this is probably less of an issue, since the scenario designer can simply avoid creating missions will this danger will arise. But in naval situations, where the ship location is not fixed, this is more difficult. The above scenario is certainly not the first time I have baited enemy fighters over naval units, and it does get kind of ridiculous when the AI falls for the same trap three to four times in a row, when a human would never even make that same mistake twice.

One change I think could be useful for Command would in order to ameliorate these sort of situations would be to introduce an "aircraft threat avoidance" doctrine setting that would instruct aircraft to stay outside of the ranges (and, preferably, altitude envelopes) of known SAM positions, similar to how submarines currently can be set to dive when a nearby surface search radar threat is detected. It wouldn't be perfect by any means, but it would at least make stuff like the above scenario less likely to happen and give the AI at least some ability to adapt to the player's tactics in this regard.

[p1t1o]

In the mission editor, a checkbox for "display mission area/course" would be useful.

A middle ground between none, all or one single mission course/area would help with designing complex scenarios.

For example, when creating a complex naval enemy, it would be useful only to see ASW mission areas in relation to each other. At the moment I can see them one at a time, or mixed in with numerous other patrols which makes them hard to make out.

*****

For strike missions, one can set a range band so it is triggered by contacts only within this min-max band.

I would find it useful to also be able to select a bearing band, so that it is triggered within a defined "sector" of bearings.

Together, this enables AI strike missions to be triggered in a much more selective manner.


Alternatively, another approach would be to replace range/bearing selectivity with a defined prosecution area similar to other mission types.

[stww2]

The option to display altitude in feet in the Line of Sight tool. Currently it can only display altitude in meters (unless I'm missing something).

[BDukes]

Would it be possible to add a dug-in or hardened property to land units via the CMO UI or Lua?

Check this twitter post on how Latakia Air Base is defended. Notice that all SAMS and radars are in revetments.

https://twitter.com/TajoTakoya/status/1 ... 0270729216

Now take a general look at photos of artillery sites, armor etc and you'll see digging in is a pretty common thing. In some cases, hardened shelters are used. (ex. Egyptian SA-3, North Korean everything, Iran Missile TELS).

How to do this:

IN CMANO I built out Korean artillery HARTS. Nice but I think that would be an unreasonable db request given the volume of units. I think giving them armor settings would just quadruple the entries as well.

Players can sort of work around this now by adding weapons, sensors, and datalinks to revetments, bunkers, etc. which may give the protection properties sought after but the problem is how the game ID's objects.

If this is worth the effort I think the devs can add a dug-in property to the unit which affords some protection. Could just be checkbox in right-click scenario editor drop-down near set orientation. Settings just be dug-in and hardened that would just add armor (same as in armor properties in db editor) and think it would cover what most are looking for. This also could be used in allowing GPS guided weapons to hit mobile targets that are static as the property could be used in the conditional logic.

Another suggestion is could armor be adjusted via lua?

What do you think?

Mike

[p1t1o]

Please can you add map shading to "Unit is detected" event triggers, similar to "Unit enters area" triggers.

Thanks,
Pete

[thewood1]

Have been trying to build a USN missile layered defense and struggling to prioritize which missiles get fired when. If a low flying plane gets to 30 miles, I want an ESSM to be fired. Right now, the ships seem to want to fire SM-2s and SM-6s. I want to hold those missiles, especially the 6s, for longer ranged threats. I want to be able to set a minimum range in the WRA, unless there are no other weapons available.

I have played with lua to do it, and its most likely doable, but complex.

[p1t1o]

A "move to" action in the event editor would be useful for positioning of AI ground forces, especially SAMs, without involving missions or teleporting.

Thanks,
Pete

[Tiramisu]

We need a dropdown in the mission editor to make the transit-, station- or attack-settings as the default ones for the throttle and altitude of the corresponding aircraft. Currently each time you give a unit a manual plotted course its settings are always switched to 36000 feet and cruise. Manual overrides solve this problem, but when you have a lot of flights this causes a lot of micro. Also you might forget to switch a setting back, which can be very disadvantageous.

[Tiramisu]

And what about adding a new doctrine-tab for an inverse WRA, which uses target-types as categories instead of weapon-types? Of course the range-settings would only make sense in combination with percentage numbers.
The normal WRA should inherit from the inverse one by default, but it can have its own overrided settings.

An inverse WRA would not only make the settings much easier, but it would also allow to introduce a new WRA-setting "Valid Target Maximum Damage" for dropping targets that have exceeded a given damage level. E.g. I would set the maximum damage of hangars to light and the maximum damage of runways to heavy.
Preventing units from attacking targets that are already disabled is a frequent source of micromanagement.

[BDukes]

Hi

I'd like air units able to host air units. Lot of drones are air-launched but looks like it's going to be a thing.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -the-works

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... eaks-cover

Thanks

Mike

[KnightHawk75]

Land\ASW\ASuW (but particularly land) Navigation option for "None\User way-points only" or something to that effect to stop the pathfinder from adding to user-plotted courses, ie do exactly as you're told unless it's literally impossible (ie basics of drive over water, sail over land, exclusion-zone etc) in which case if you get stuck so be it, it's on the user.

[p1t1o]

More control over ship-to-ship UNREP. At least select on/off for fuel and weapons, ideally more specific control over ammo transfers and ability to choose the fuel type that oilers carry.

Thanks,
P

[p1t1o]

Building enemy AIs requires a lot of fiddly changes as you test things out and then fine-tune it, it would be ace if it was possible:


To drag-and-drop a contact from the world map into the mission editor to re/assign it. (Over a certain amount of missions or units, repeatedly navigating the lists can become a little time consuming, from a UI point of view)

For RPs with relativity to a unit/group to move in unison with that unit/group, when moving units around in the editor. (When you need to move that carrier group a few miles and it has AWACS, CAPs and ASW patrols attached.)

If there were doctrine options for "reaction to a unit with [player editable]posture within [player editable]nm" or "reaction to being fired upon" - options could include "RTB", "Engage if possible", "Investigate", "Nothing", "Change EMCON to allactive/allpassive/[playereditable]" and such etc (this would save a great deal of event handling and lua code and make many mission types more easily viable - eg: enemy naval recon that will not over-fly your fleet/fly into a CAP, or strikes that engage OECM or RTB if fired upon, without using complex lua)

Thanks,
P