CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[charlee22009]

We really need flight planning for when units takeoff from airfields. Ie, the ability to plan an aircraft’s flightpath (and altitude) prior to departure at different waypoints would add a great deal of realism.

Then (like classic harpoon could even do) once a waypoint is reached the unit should be able to revert to another mission, like CAP or ASW patrol, or ferry. This would allow units to takeoff and do things other than fly direct to the point to start their mission. Flying direct in a straight line after takeoff is extremely unrealistic... and is the main thing that keeps me from playing CMO honestly right now.

I would think that some form of ‘flight planning’ with fuel estimation would be a significant sticking point for DoD planners or educators... and I’m surprised it hasn’t been added to CMO by now.

[Selchu]

ORIGINAL: 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

And perhaps even a mission for it so that helicopters could help transfer cargo, for example missiles. This would also be realistic I believe.

[ai_beyondcontrol]

It will be a good idea to introduce a databank entry editor so that users can customize their own DB entry. It would be even better to allow the game to load scenario-specified databank instead of the "common" one (i.e. the current DB3K) to enables much greater degree of freedom. This would be extremely useful when someone want to add/tweak only a few specific loadout/weapon/platform entries. It would be too time-consuming if all such minor modification requests have to be integrated into the "official" DB3K update.

[ai_beyondcontrol]

Yeah, I think databank editing is really something very important. The exponentially increasing requests for DB entry update/tweak is overwhelming now.Plus, many data in current DB3K is, to say it mildly, controversial. (and would take a very long time to improve). Allowing the game to load user-customized DB seem to be a win-win strategy. For me it is even acceptable for Matrix to sell the databank editor itself as a DLC.

[KLAB]

Database editing is a very bad idea. It will happen only when the sim is at the end of its commercial life.
The professional version and by default the features in it such as customised DB and the revenue it generates is what allows multiple continuous and swift updates feature devopments and fixes.
It's a trade off and anyone with experience of the Harpoon days will be aware of multiple divergent and to some extent factionalised database editing.
The solution would be simply to allow components to be added on a scenario platform basis via ini files but allow any element power plants comms hangars boats etc to be modified from some baseline templates with the radar, IR visual signature set at a default.
Eg.
Small stealth FAC generic
Medium FFG Non stealth generic
Etc
To some extent these already exist.
Personally I would love to be able to edit the DB but it's a poison chalice.
Anyway just a thought not criticism.
K

[BDukes]

Could we have a way weapons to target specific components on warships and specific mounts in land facilities?

Use cases:

Iranian speedboats wanting to target Aegis SPY arrays or mounts with 12.7mm etc or RPG.
Azeri or Turkish Drone small munitions and suicide drones targeting SAM battery radars and Optical mounts.
ATGM class weapons, Suicide drone USV/UUV/AUV, lasers hitting ship propulsion etc.

Implementation

Additional button in the weapon allocation dialogs and attack functions in Lua.

Thanks!

Mike

[thewood1]

I'd like to have range rings set to the WRA settings. Anything to help manage the workload and monitoring of WRAs is welcome.

[p1t1o]

ORIGINAL: Selchu
And perhaps even a mission for it so that helicopters could help transfer cargo, for example missiles. This would also be realistic I believe.

+1, would expand the utility of shipborne helicopters too, and cargo units in general. Introduces re-supply missions with a real impact if they are intercepted.


******************************


I cant find a way to alter the RTB throttle of naval units, this would be nice to have.

Thanks,
P

[pxl919092]

I would kindly request the game developers reconsider selling the pro edition to civilians.

in the "a few hundred dollars" range, minus the support afforded to corporations and military, may attract a lot of buyers.

a lot of people would buy it for the DB editing alone, plus things like HGV.

I do understand there may be export control issues here as sales of the pro version seem restricted to NATO-bloc countries.

would an "individual professional license" fly for citizens within the NATO bloc?

otherwise selling the DB editor as a separate SDK/DLC would work for many as well.

ORIGINAL: KLAB
The professional version and by default the features in it such as customised DB and the revenue it generates is what allows multiple continuous and swift updates feature devopments and fixes.

[p1t1o]

A separate option in the Message Log display options for "Contact Loss".

So can remove less useful contact loss messages (which are sometimes cluttered by things like sonabuoys) but keep other contact changes.

***

Edit 20/02/21 01:22

Possible to make RPs unselectable/undraggable when RPs set to "Do not show"?

Possible to add ability to make an RP relative to an object, but "Latitude only" or "Longitude only"?


Thanks,
P

[ETF]

Real-Time MP - as was hinted at haha just before release

[TitaniumTrout]

Could a new tab be added for contents of a group?

For example if I have a hostile airfield I can either switch to Unit Mode and hover over each icon, or create a strike mission and look at the units on the list and that's about it. Ideally it would be :



Then when you click on the Grouped Unit tab you would see all of the units contained. This is particularly useful to see if a structure has been destroyed. It would be extra-ideal to have the damage, fire, or flood state, called out here as well.

[p1t1o]

This is a bit random, but a dropdown with the last three searched for things on most search boxes (add-unit search, database search, magazine search etc.) would be a really nice quality-of-life upgrade.


Thanks,
P

[cmanouser1]

Two quality-of-life ideas for submarines:

*in Options->Message Log, we already have "New Weapon contact". Add "New Torpedo contact". This would help in combined forces scenarios where you don't care much about much weapons except for torpedoes that you always care about
* for submarines, in Throttle & Altitude, add a new Depth Preset: in-layer, which would be the middle of the layer (the submarine would adjust automatically to layer changes too).

[Blast33]

When we use satellites in a scenario, the intel they provide is being fed directly to the current situation..

I can imagine that for example an imagery sat has to pass over one of its download ground stations, it hast to be sent to a analysis center. Someone has to study it and the conclusions has to be written down on the imagery and sent to CENTCOM, EUCOM or for Russia or the UK to at least the commander who needs it.

This takes time. And this info is not available in real-time as it is now in the game.

Now the interesting part: how much time is needed for this circle to go round?
Two hours? One hour? 30 minutes?
Who can give a suggestion?

[Parel803]

Intresting Question. And not only for imagery I guess. Not sure but feels like a tricky path for the game. Very true for Sats but in the game your' either in the net or your not.
I don't have a hard answer on times, guess it depends. But there are many more sits where you don't have all the info from your's partners due to varies reasons. In real life that is.
with regards Gert-Jan

[Gunner98]

A similar point can be made about reconnaissance aircraft in a pre-digital age. Some even today.

Not sure on processing time but there is also the question of accessibility - could a commander in the tactical world physically get the material? The further back in time you go the less likely that is.

[thewood1]

There have been pushes through the years ever since CMNAO/CMO was released about access and use of strategic-level/operational-level recon assets and information. I have built scenarios over the years for myself that replicate the information loop on recon assets. Mostly for air recon before the digital network age. Its a combination of missions, events, comms, lua, and even dynamic sides. The easiest one is keeping a recon unit out of comms until it returns to base. Then you switch comms back on. All of the recon units contacts are now part of the player's information network. Before the comms function was releases, I used side-switching with events to do it. Its pretty easy to do either way.

But this is a scenario designers question. Its not really a question for someone who just plays.

edit: btw, you can use similar processes for satellites. Until the players/designers exhaust the capabilities of the current game to do stuff like this, I would prefer the devs spend their time on other things.

[Gunner98]

Yeah that would work.

[p1t1o]

I would prefer the devs spend their time on other things.

Never dont make a suggestion though.

The devs decide what to spend their time on, as you or anyone would in their position - this thread isnt actually binding. You cant accidentally vote something up too much, because then it might actually be worth doing.

If you dont want the devs to spend time on something, dont suggest it.
If you do, or you want the devs to be the ones to choose, then do.

Sorry, pet peeve, I respectfully leave this as personal opinion to be taken or left at anyone's discretion.