Matrix Games Forums

And the Stuff in the descriptions is not directly linked to the in-game data, specs and capabilities. That is the stuff found in the clear charts and lists that are a part of every DB entry

What happens if say a few publications oriented towards the general public give "best guess" data on a particular aircraft or equipment and the Devs decide to use this for CMANO.
Will / can the military customers tell the Devs that the info is too accurate and they have to fudge the numbers - even if the data used was in the public domain ?

If the defense industry or armed forces of the nation in question had a problem with it, they would be right to go after the publishers of those publications. At that point though, I think the cat would basically be out of the bag.

ORIGINAL: mikkey

ORIGINAL: Grazyn
If they don't consider wiki a reliable source, then why are most unit descriptions copypasted from wikipedia? [:D]

Grazyn, descriptions, similar as image packs, is community project. Descriptions are taken by various users from different sources (also from the wiki) and serve for better understanding of specific units. They have nothing to do with the unit data source. Unit data are directly managed by developers.

I honestly didn't know that, I didnt download community images or descriptions and still found wiki descriptions in the vanilla database, so I thought they were put there by devs.

One part of this conversation that seems to be missing is the use case of investigating hypothetical platforms. Certainly proposed platforms show up in the DB, which I appreciate, but what kind of armchair admiral would I be if I didn't think I had ideas for a better variation of the LCS in mind. At least in my case I don't have any interest in point fixes to the DB, or buffing out a platform to further skew the odds in my favor. I do like to imagine a Zumwalt derivative with the gun mounts replaced with a few score of additional VLS cells. Or conversions of the Iowas. I want to optimize a new escort carrier design with an all drone airwing, and spec out the classes of drones. I want to run them through battle scenarios and see how my idle ruminations stack up against the current or proposed fleets.

I don't think this needs the full capabilities of the professional version. Nonetheless, I see this as a very reasonable version of modding, and one I would have thought was a fairly common interest among the community.

Maybe a supplemental db for modified platforms, or db-editing-lite feature could be achievable. I'd love to see what sort of platforms the community would come up with. I'd also very much like to see the supplemental tools that I'm sure would be developed, or that I'd develop myself, for thing like a top-level ship designer.

I think this fits in with one of the primary motivations behind command players. I think a lot of us want to see if our tactics would have prevailed. Or if our opinions on platform configurations would be born out.

Kelseyeek, what you are talking about is most definitely doable. You can change the weapons and sensors of ships, and I think to a some what lesser extent, aircraft and subs. They just are not saved in the DB, but in the scenario you are making.

You can try to improve the LCS, as it very well should be [:D]

You can add more VLS to the Zumwalt. You can upgrade the Iowa with things like Aegis and Railguns (assuming you have CoW with the latter).

For a drone equipped Escort carrier, as long as you use an existing ship like the Wasp class, you can probably do it.

All of these can be made in scenario edit mode, and I think you can save a template of your modified ship, but I'm not sure.

What you cannot do is things like change the stats of weapons, sensors, aircraft and ships. You also cannot built brand new ships, subs, planes, weapons and sensors from scratch

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.

You argument holds no water.

Amen Brother open the store

I did and I wasn't impressed.

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

What happens if say a few publications oriented towards the general public give "best guess" data on a particular aircraft or equipment and the Devs decide to use this for CMANO.
Will / can the military customers tell the Devs that the info is too accurate and they have to fudge the numbers - even if the data used was in the public domain ?

Well from someone who has held Secret or Top Secret clearances since 1977, dealing with navy nuclear propulsion and previously nuclear weapons, as an individual you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT do this. If you did you would be confirming classified information. You have no way of knowing if the developers distilled public domain info and made an educated guess that just happened to be very close. Which they are free to do and is the most likely reason.

Some of my former students would ask about things they've read in Wikipedia or elsewhere on these subjects and you just have to tell them you can't discuss it. Period.

Hard to disagree with that Dave

What I want from a Pro version of command would have nothing to do with any more data than we currently have.

Which I personally think is WAY more than I would have authorised for public consumption if I had a vote

Give me a LAN based version so I can build a tactical team trainer

No additional editing capabilities.

I'm a modder myself and sympathize with the original posters wish to be able to use CMNO as an experimental platform to test out experimental weapons, platforms, and capabilities to see what impact they would make on tatics and outcomes.

Its financially better for the devs not to permit this "officially" so that they can keep reselling the product with new upgrades. Its the long view of things.

I'm hoping that the devs have made enough success of their efforts that they can go full time into CMNO and are being compensated nicely. CMNO is really a unique project and has been more successful as a grass roots than most professionally made competitors. It demonstrates the power of a determined consumer base.

Not sure if there would be anything even close to CMNO if it was never developed, so I'll count my blessings and thanks.

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra
What I want from a Pro version of command would have nothing to do with any more data than we currently have.

Which I personally think is WAY more than I would have authorised for public consumption if I had a vote

Give me a LAN based version so I can build a tactical team trainer

If you are serious about this, and are representing an organization, please contact us in private.

Thanks!

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.

On what basis do you make that assertion?

Why not re-enlist in the USN or give the developers a good reason to provide you the Pro version. Otherwise, you are blowing out head winds. The forum is not about the developer's business model.

Kevin

I'm kind of doubtful most people here hold clearances of any kind. There was a short survey several years ago and the majority here have never been involved with the military or defense. Are you mixing this up with the Pro version?

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra

Come On most of us here held or hold top secret clearances. Trust me there is nothing Command has that comes close to the simulators I used in the Navy on a daily basis.

You argument holds no water.

Few things irritate me more than statements like this: Proclaiming knowledge about all or the majority of users without providing any evidence to support such a claim.

I have no clearance of any kind and never served in my nation's armed forces or defense industry. I am just an enthusiast on the subject matter who enjoys playing CMANO and reading about modern military hardware and warfare on my own time.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I'm kind of doubtful most people here hold clearances of any kind. There was a short survey several years ago and the majority here have never been involved with the military or defense. Are you mixing this up with the Pro version?

Although I agree with you, it's worth noting that most people who have clearances (especially TS/SCI) won't brag about it on the internet.

They don't need to brag about it. That's not what I said. The question that was asked back when Command was released was if anyone worked in the military or defense industry. Just looking at that, clearances would most likely be a subset. I think you can intelligently assume there aren't many clearances beyond military or defense on this board.

Having real life "clearances" past, present, or future has nothing to do with the Command game play experience. Let the developers work those things out behind the scenes while players play and design scenarios for the sim. And help new players. Player feedback is respected when it is presented respectfully. Saying I know more than you because I was on this or that ship or stationed here or there is frankly meaningless within the context on this war game. We respect all that served. But don't bully your way in that way.

Play the Game.

Kevin

Sorry Yeah it really bothers me too when someone thinks I know more than I do.

Great Idea on the ship counter side BZ (Nice job)