CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[kahta]

Adding a dark theme to the Open Street map view would be great.

[gennyo]

As I'm sticking with Windows 10 1607 and will not update in the foreseeable future (meaning I'm somewhat with older build of Command now) and only would deploy linux on newer real hardware, I hope there's plan for a linux build or a version could be run on linux in the same foreseeable future.

[thewood1]

I would suggest looking at the steam forum. There's a thread there on running on linux. A few people have managed it last I checked.

Found it...

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1076160/ ... 495286009/

[JFS737]

Hi,
I would love it if in the missions-> Tanker config section, I could limit my mission aircraft to XX number of refuellings. I may wish one mission unlimited, another 1 and another 3 or 4. As it is, it's either can refuel or can't and if it can, they seem to do so eternally.

Thanks,
John

[thewood1]

One feature I have thought about for a while that really crystalized when someone asked a question on the forum is a more detailed notification and messaging system. Right now there are about 20 different categories that will pop up a message or balloon. I propose that the messaging configuration be more like the exclusion zone configuration. Give us the option to only see new contacts (for example) for one side, one class, or one specific unit. As below:

Screenshot 2025-01-18 140105.jpg (29.4 KiB) Viewed 1262 times

I think making the above capability a more detail approach to most types of messaging like are currently available:

Screenshot 2025-01-18 140252.jpg (128.05 KiB) Viewed 1262 times

All of this would allow a good balance of planning-focused players and micromanagement-focused players.

btw, trying to do this in lua for anything but a small scenario is nightmare-ish.

[Kobu]

Hi,
I would love it if in the missions-> Tanker config section, I could limit my mission aircraft to XX number of refuellings. I may wish one mission unlimited, another 1 and another 3 or 4. As it is, it's either can refuel or can't and if it can, they seem to do so eternally.

Thanks,
John

+1 It would be a very good addition.
To be taken into account now that aerial refueling is being reworked.


Regards

[JFS737]

If they are reworking air refueling, then possibly they could also allow the RTB'ing A/C to take only enough fuel to RTB and land with planned reserves instead of topping of and depleting the tanker asset. Would help with puny tankers like MQ25.
Even more interesting would be the ability to assign how much fuel each jet should take on.

[DWReese]

Please add the option of selecting 3 shooters to the WRA Shooters option.

When accessing the WRA and designating the number of Shooters, the program gives you the option of 1, 2, or 4 shooters. It does not give you 3. Many countries use the 3-plane attack formation. When trying to decide how many shooters, if you designate 2, then it is too few, and you have one extra that does nothing. If you select 4, then it generally works, but sometimes goes a little weird if you tell it to fire all of its weapons.

[DWReese]

Please add the option of being able to jettison unused ordinance.

Occasionally, planes don't fire their entire ordinance allotment, and they attempt to bring it back to the base. That's great, but sometimes you were expecting the plane to use all of its ordinance, and it didn't. This often creates a fuel issue, especially if it is now being pursued by defending CAP units. It could be highly beneficial to have the option of dumping the unused ordinance rather than running out of fuel because you are trying to avoid being attacked by the enemy and you need to have speed and fuel in order to get away.

[DWReese]

I would like to see a NO NAVIGATION aircraft zone be able to be placed around a target when creating a Flight Path for a strike.

Often a target is protected by SAMs. In many cases, the SAMs have a limited range, such as 8 miles. In this example, let's assume that my striking planes have a GBU-38, with a 13 miles radius. No problem, right? Well, you would think not, but for some weird reason my planes all seem to like to ENTER the kill area where they can be shot at after shooting their weapons. Escorts, in particular, are really bad about this.

So, I wanted to create a NO NAV zone prohibiting my planes from getting too close to the target. Problem. I can't create any attack if the target is surrounded by a NO NAV zone.

I then tried to add the NO NAV Zone AFTER the Flight Path was created. Since it was created AFTER the Flight Path, the plane ignores the NO NAV zone, and enters the zone as described above.

So, it would be nice to create a NO NAV zone that allows the plane to be able to be able to plot the course after the Path Finder determines that my weapon has the range to shoot from beyond and OVER the zone.

[gennyo]

I hope to have these two QoL features.

1. optional black or dark on light color scheme (the traditional "Microsoft Gray")

2. customization of hotkeys, or optional disabling of certain hotkeys.

I play CMO on an old laptop, via VNC or running on it. As I do most of my reading on my laptop, my backlight and screen color setting is optimized to have maximum readability for black-on-white content like books. That makes CMO's dark interface (and any other webpages and applications using dark theme) somewhat difficult to see, I need to crank up backlight from time to time to properly use it.

About hotkeys... Using Trackpoint and accidently press the B or U key in the most inappropiate time is sad.

[Schr75]

I would like to propose a third option regarding show enemy range rings.
Show only selected unit (like you can do with contact emissions).

This way you save a lot of CPU cycles and still retain an easy way to get enemy range info.

Søren

[Quark73]

Visualise the active/passive mode of sensors even if Inherit from Parent is selected.

Bild_2025-03-26_204753322.png (27.55 KiB) Viewed 731 times

If Inherit from Parent is deselected it gets visible if a sensor is active or passive, it would be handy if the status would be visible somehow even change is not allowed by checkmark.

[binaryfireball]

Command groups & task pool generation by type
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Command Group - A logical organizational grouping of units representing a single command, whether it be a division, corps, army, coalition member, theater of operations, etc...

* Unlike the current groups, command groups are not meant to hide units or be given direct orders but instead are used to more effectively manage
units inside an AO via task pools, missions, etc....

* A command group can be assigned AOs (defined by areas as currently implemented)
- When an AO is assigned to a command group units can inside that AO can automatically be assigned to that command group.
* Command groups can be nested? The idea being that you can represent an entire chain of command though I don't know how much benefit it would actually be to the player.

Task pool generation - UI that creates task pools based off of user defined criteria

* UI would be present in the "New Mission" dialogue box or in it's own dialogue accessible via "Missions + ref Points" dropdown in the toolbar
* User would be able to generate task pools by one or more prioritized unit criteria (e.g 1.command group 2.type would produce task pools like "CENTCOM-AWACS" "CENTCOM-STRIKE" "CENTCOM AWS" etc...)
* User could possibly create groupings of criteria with a custom name (e.g If a user wanted to group AWS and maritime patrol types into one task pool with a ridiculous name -"Flying Fish")

Reasoning

Right now organizing task pools is a tedious and time consuming chore which is a barrier to entry into the more complex scenarios as to my knowledge the UI simply doesn't have a straight forward way to organize the massive amounts of units present in these complex scenarios.
One way to do this would be to add functionality to the OOB to allow for units to be added to missions via a right-click context menu (like you can with the Air Ops menu at an airbase) another way would be to implement Command groups and task pool generators/managers as described above. Either way right now I spend just as much time organizing units into a workable structure as I do using them "playing the game". The solutions I have proposed may be flawed or undesirable for x,y, or z but I think the problem itself is a real one that deserves attention. The workflow as currently presented to the user is a pain. It may also be possible that there are existing features that I don't know about that would solve this issue but in that case I argue that they need more visibility.

[Dimitris]

I would like to propose a third option regarding show enemy range rings.
Show only selected unit (like you can do with contact emissions).

This way you save a lot of CPU cycles and still retain an easy way to get enemy range info.

I think this is already present.......?

[Knightpawn]

I would like to propose a third option regarding show enemy range rings.
Show only selected unit (like you can do with contact emissions).

This way you save a lot of CPU cycles and still retain an easy way to get enemy range info.

Søren

For me it would be very convenient if I had the choice to "Show Non-Friendly-Range Symbols ONLY"

[thewood1]

I searched and all I could find was a request by myself for this feature back in 2013.

Can we get a lua function or event trigger that starts and stops the game recorder? I have been trying to isolate a few things and am creating massive files. It would be simpler to start the recording when a unit enters and area and then shut it off when it departs.

[PeekingDuck2]

1. I would like to see a better integration of TacView as it is currently rather clunky. Meaning it requires several restarts just to keep working during large scenarios. Also, AAR is something I would have voted for but was limited to only voting for one thing.

2. Along with better pathfinding for ground units, I would really like to see expansion of the currently available NATO symbology present in the commercial edition to reflect those available in the professional edition. Or at least a means for modders to add their own symbols for ground units.

3. Multi-player has been available for CMO-Pro for a very long time and was promised to CMANO/CMO a long time ago. It may not be the community's highest priority, but I believe adding this functionality would increase sales, even if only a small bit.

[thewood1]

Can you show the devs promising multiplayer and when they said it would be available for consumer?

[tylerblakebrandon]

Can you show the devs promising multiplayer and when they said it would be available for consumer?

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... r#p5191116

To quote Dimitris in a reply in the above thread;

"This is the WEGO-style MP.

The feature in preparation for CMO is real-time."

However, Kushan did clarify"

"Command PE will be getting real-time multiplayer in the upcoming 2.4 update. ETA is very soon.

No update when it'll be added to CMO."

So it sounds like RTMP for commercial CMO planned but no ETA is set.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... r#p5189865

Here it was implied but not stated explicitly.