Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.
jason oates wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:36 pm
Hi Dimitris,
If you have a pattern or lines of buoys you should be able to tell which ones are reporting a return and the strength.
That would indicate the real area of interest that could then be focused upon. On the other side of the coin, the sub would need to use tactics to avoid buoys. Perhaps reading Red Storm Rising was not the best briefing!
This already happens. Detections from buoys provide an AOU for each hit, which varies according to the buoy type (directional or omni). These successive AOUs are automatically merged (and steadily grow as a contact ages), providing you with the probable area of localization for the target sub.
So, again: Why bother with showing the signal strength? This is not Dangerous Waters, you are not a sonar/sonobuoy console operator, you are (at the lowest possible level of commanding) the ASW TAO of the ship/sub/aircraft.
Some wish list functionalities (but I don't discount the possibility of my being totally blind and the feature is already included)
1. Allow for ENEMY ONLY range circles (both merged and not merged)
2. Allow for filtering out categories of units on map. For example it would be nice - especially at planning stage - to be able to see Radars only, or air defenses only, or naval units only, or bases only, etc.)
I know that this can be done via LUA, but it's beyond my capabilities (at least at the moment). The ability to link SAMs and other air defences to Sector Control Stations, C3M Bunkers etc, which means that destroying / heavily damaging one of these causes the SAM site to lose comms.
1) with a full lua script. Most flexible, but most complex and risky to changes.
2) Using the event editor and one line of lua code outofcomms(unit). For a less experienced scenario designer, this is the easiest and most stable approach.
3 Three sides all arrayed as friendly and neutral. The sides are Comm center, Shooters (SAM), and Eyes (early warning radar and observers). Just make sure the SAM and radar have UHF radios, they are spaced properly, and emcom is set. You can then kill the Comms center and if set up properly, the radar and the SAM, being on different neutral side, will lose comms. If someone is deadset against any lua, this is the way to go.
And there are combinations of these three. You can make it as complex or simple as you want as a designer. I used to use three a lot but have started using 2 a lot more as comms disruption was added to the consumer version. Of course there might be other and better ways to do it, but 2&3 are fairly simple and well within the capabilities of most scenario designers.
Would it be possible to gate out the more obvious, unrefined, or inaccurate detections from the display? Not looking for perfection or advanced processing on phase one, just handling some of the more obvious things. Things like sub detection on land, ground, or facility contacts in water.
Screenshot 2025-06-17 143932.jpg (368.13 KiB) Viewed 884 times
There have been a number of tickets on the sub-contacts on land in the past.
I would like to see a 3-plane Strike Package. There is a need for it. Right now there are 1, 2, and 4. Why not 3? There are times when two is not enough, and four is too many.
- the fireball of missiles should be turned off as soon the boost phase is over
- warheads and decoys that reach space should separate from missiles after end of boost phase (at least ICBM do so to my knowledge)
- missile tracking radars and satellites should calculate point of impact with decreasing area of uncertainty over time to give the player the choice to act or not depending on where the missile aims
thewood1 wrote: Thu Jul 17, 2025 7:49 pm
I thought the fireball was only on re-entry. I have never really looked in detail.
Valid point. So there should be another fireball from 122 km downwards until it goes slower than below Mach 10 or so. But in between it should turn dark during its travel between boost phase and re-entry.
I would like to suggest that airbases would prioritize launching aircraft instead of recovering then as long as none of the returning A/C are critically low on fuel (or another set fuel limit), or at least reserve one runway, if there are more than one, to launches.
It can be a bit frustrating to see your strike package taxiing around on the ground while another strike is returning with plenty of fuel to stay in holding for a while, and the ATC won´t let them launch.
The ability to set Risk Appetite/Risk Tolerance of Units and Missions in the general would be very beneficial in several circumstances. I understand that CMO is a simulation rather than a traditional RTS/RTT game where one shouldn't expect their units to die hopefully valiantly in combat without attempting to evade enemy fire. At the moment, as the player, we're stuck between units taking evasion action that is unpredictable and hard to plan for, or the setting being disabled when the unit will not attempt any defensive manoeuvres.
I believe it would be useful to have options to set the risk appetite for Sides, Missions, Groups, and individual Units via the standard ROE/EMCON/WRA windows. How this is labelled could be in numbered format (1 being low risk, 5 being high risk, for example) or using text in boxes. Units that have the low risk setting applied would treat enemy fire similarly to how it is currently modelled, being Engaged Defensive when a missile or similar is fired in their general direction. Higher risk tolerance levels would reduce prevent the units from taking defensive action until the threat is closer, but still leave time for last minute manoeuvres on all settings apart from the auto-evasion being turned completely off (this setting could be rolled into the new one).
I believe that this option would be very useful in the following circumstances
1 - Strike aircraft to being escorted to a target: enemy aircraft attempting to engage the escort fighters will often causing the strikers themselves to flee, which can be counterproductive, especially if this is a situation critical mission. This can be especially be frustrating in cases when the strike aircraft are using terrain masking, and therefore should be difficult to target, and/or in situations where flight plans have been made to avoid certain SAM sites or airbases. In such cases, aircraft may go from attempting to evade a AAM that wasn't aimed at them, to flying over enemy air defences which then shoot them down.
2 - Aircraft armed with SAHM weapons, like the AIM-7 Sparrow: currently, a flight of SAHM aircraft almost always turn away from their targets causing the AIM-7 to immediately go blind, meaning that they often loose the fight very easily. Instead, units should be able to engage in a game of "chicken", realising that, if they destroy the enemy fighter controlling their side's SAHMs, the missile will go blind. Having the option to increase the risk tolerance would help ensure that the pilots give their missiles chance to kill the enemy, but will still take defensive action should it be more clear that their tactic has failed, or the enemy missile is now so close that they must honour the threat.
