Dear Devs, can you please make more of the new sim features optional?

[Gizzmoe]

Does Steam automatically update?

Yes, an update can't be skipped. Devs can provide an optional fallback version on Steam, but not every dev does that.

[Easy301]

Does Steam automatically update?

Yes, an update can't be skipped. Devs can provide an optional fallback version on Steam, but not every dev does that.

Just to clarify updates can be skipped on Steam though it's not the most eloquent of solutions.

If you go to properties>Manage Game you can turn automatic updates off. This will stop the game from auto updating. Using this feature along with starting Steam in offline mode will allow you to launch and play Command without having to update.

That's obviously a solution that's not super convenient but as long as the user keeps automatic updates off and remembers to use Steams offline mode when launching Command after a new version is available, they'll be able to stay on their current version indefinitely.

I wish Steam provided a better solution to do that, to be honest. You're right though, a branch with the previous version would be the easiest solution. As of now if you're looking to consistently use a previous version the easiest method would be the Matrix Store version of the game.

[Mickeys91]

I for one am all about keep the adding of details just as long as they are realistic and do not break the sim to unplayable. I don't mind learning. The harder it is the more fun I have...personally. The new update of weather and fatigue impact is perfect and I look forward to more. But obviously there is a limit to the game aspect of it such as adding pilot emotions or a nations politics that can effect its fighting ability obviously that level of realism gas gone a little too far.

But if the devs CAN make a option in future that would be great though I dont blame that if not because coding that as a option is time consuming and halts the other features for future updates.

[alphali]

I personally just don't think adding various system reworks - alternative sonar, radar, missile models as options is the answer to keeping community content balanced and compatible in the long run.

No, it's not the answer, and it's not supposed to be the answer The alternative for some CMO gamers to not having options for certain new sim features would be to use an older version of CMO for a while though, until scenarios have been updated. There's nothing wrong with using an old version per se, thewood1 suggested that already, but that's a segmentation and fragmention of the community as well.

There is no perfect solution, both have problems. But I think you are focusing on the "now" aspect and the devs need to balance what the updates disrupt now, with the cost over the long run. Sure adding the two additional features as options might not be a huge problem, but what about the next two features, and the ones after that. Over the long run, 1 or 2 or 3 years from now, what would the game look like if every new feature that could break some scenarios for a short time (or maybe for a long time) was added as an option? How easy will it be to maintain? to create new scenarios? to introduce new players to the game?

Some scenarios might be broken forever, but new scenarios will always be made taking advantage of all the new features. In the end its up to the devs to balance the short-term and long-term effects for each new feature and how to provide it in-game, and it won't be a perfect choice for everyone.

[boogabooga]

I'm going to take a chance and weigh back in on this one. I'm going to speak to what I think is best for the "average" CMO player; the argument to personally withhold updating or not is meaningless to me- I'll have a solution that works for myself either way.

I'm going to talk specifically about the new missile fly-out model because I'm working on an update to the A2A BVR Duel Quick Battle set. I've spent the last month with that trying to understand the new model and how it is different from the old one, and what parameters are the most important, etc. I've tested just about every combination of head-to-head BVR fighter duel in each era. I don't think that the community yet understands the implications of the new model. In my view, using the new model effectively requires deliberate attention- specifically to the WRA doctrine. Yeah, the new mode "feels" weird, but that is just because the community hasn't come to appreciate just how much the practical air-to-air engagement ranges have shrunk compared to the old. It's just like the torpedoes- there is now a practical and also a kinetic range to consider and those are very different things. Trust me, the new model feels quite right if you take that AMRAAM shot at 15nm instead of 30.

Pre-Tiny scenarios by-and-large do not have the attention to detail in this area because it was generally not required. It's not just about the player, but how the OpFor is scripted as well- and that takes attention from the scenario designer. So yes, I would say that older scenarios that feature air-to-air combat are quite damaged when using the new model- and for this reason I would support having the new model be a scenario option.

Alternative solutions might be:
-Giving a new doctrine setting for practical vs. kinetic missile range, the same as is done for guided torpedoes now
-Some sort of script to adjust the WRA Max range to 40% (or whatever). (But it will take someone who really knows what they are doing because there is some nuance to consider. )

P.S. The new aircraft exhaustion model is emerging as something else to potentially consider as making optional as it is outright breaking some great older scenarios like El Dorado Canyon, etc.

[Gizzmoe]

But I think you are focusing on the "now" aspect and the devs need to balance what the updates disrupt now, with the cost over the long run.

Yes, I focus only the "now" aspect, and that aspect is quite big. The reasons were shown several times in this thread, boogabooga explained the situation really well in the post before this one.