RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

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.

Moderator: MOD_Command

magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by magi »

I have the side… The feature I want more than any other… First… Is better screen resolution ......
FoxZz
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:37 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by FoxZz »

I'd like to propose a new thing to the list.

Would it be possible to make the altitude indication refering to the ground level and not the sea level up to the medium altitude bar (3000m +) ? From 0 to 3/4000 meters the altitude would be indicated refering to the ground altitude, past this bar it would be indicated refering to teh sea altitude.
For example when you set your plane altitude to 500m it would mean 500m above ground level, and if you're flying above a 200m high hill, it would be equal to an 700m altitude above sea. But if you set your plane to an altitude of 5000m it would be 5000m above sea. Currently the minimal altitude preset works that way, and it would be usefull to extend this feature to all the low altitude presets. Since when you are at low altitude what interest you is the space ebtween you and the surface level, not the theorical sea altitude.

This would be very usefull concerning low altitude flights and minimal weapons release altitude. Those are indicated in ground altitude, while the plane altitude is indicated in sea altitude. Thus it often results in approximationon on the right altitude to set to allow weapon release, and thus, the aircraft tend to overclimb and be shot at. Basically, when you use low flying altitude you want to fly as low as possible and thus you need precise indications on your actual altitude from surface.

I hope my point was clear enough :p, thanks to consider this.
FoxZz
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:37 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by FoxZz »

I also have another proposal :

When you add a sensor or a weapon to a unit, you have to check all those boxes to set the angle of firing or detection, etc. Would it be possible to add one box saying "check all", so that if you want to set a 360° coverage you would only have to check on box instead of twelve ? And if you want a 280 coverage, it's only a few box to uncheck rather than checking a dozen.
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by stilesw »

I would really like to see this also - one click instead of 16. On a similar note, would it be possible to select multiple units to be assigned to a mission by selecting the first unit, hold down the shift key and select the last unit so that all the units between them would be picked? There are times when there may be say 36 F-15s available for and AAW mission but I only want to use the first 18 (or 12-24). This would obviate the need to select all 18 individually. Thanks for considering this.

Wayne Stiles
“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)
User avatar
PoorOldSpike
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Plymouth, England

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by PoorOldSpike »

Ships with CIWS and guns won't automatically turn to bring them to bear on incoming anti-ship missiles in the CIWS/guns blind spots, even though the missiles are detected at 10 nm or more and the ships have therefore got plenty of time to turn, so the sooner this is fixed the better because it's a real game-killer for me.
Suggestion- the devs could do a spot of re-programming to get rid of blind spots so that CIWS/guns have 360-degree coverage and can engage "abstractedly", i.e. we can assume ships are turning even though we can't actually see them doing so.
"Fight with your brain first and your weapons second!"
AlexinCT
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:27 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by AlexinCT »

I would like a lua command that allows me to add, remove, or modify weapons content at a facility. Specifically the ammo storage sites. This would be even more powerful if the recently introduced lua command that allows you to make units switch sides would do so with grouped facilities too. You can then with this combination simulate landings and facilities being captured and reused by the force that captured that facility.
WBailey
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:58 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by WBailey »

I wish I could vote for multiple things on this list! I didn't notice dynamic campaign until after I voted, I think I would prefer that over my previous first choice (aircraft damage model).
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Primarchx »

ORIGINAL: AlexinCT

I would like a lua command that allows me to add, remove, or modify weapons content at a facility. Specifically the ammo storage sites. This would be even more powerful if the recently introduced lua command that allows you to make units switch sides would do so with grouped facilities too. You can then with this combination simulate landings and facilities being captured and reused by the force that captured that facility.

I've wanted methods that allows you to a) change a unit's side (accomplished!) and b) add a unit to a formation. This is so I could create a side called Logistics which whose units (Ammo facilities with magazines) would be teleported in, switched to a given side and grouped with a given unit on a certain trigger. Your request is cool, too, as it would allow you to add/delete/modify existing content in existing units, too.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Primarchx »

One more pop to the top of the stack for a request for an LOS tool.
ThornEel
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:12 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by ThornEel »

Does extended space operations include the Soviet Polyus-Skif orbital laser? The more hypothetical Project Thor? Orion battleships? Orion orbital 3000 MT nuclear weapon?
ColonelMolerat
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:36 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by ColonelMolerat »

A small thing - could the database perhaps have a clearer range listing for units' weapons (such as a separate field)? It would be nice if, when viewing a unit, I could tell at a glance how close it needs to be to fire. At the moment, the range can get a little lost in the other info.
Vici Supreme
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:06 pm
Location: Southern Germany

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Vici Supreme »

Could there be a misson editor option to make the 1/3rd rule apply to all aircraft of various types rather then only aircraft of the same model when assigned to patrol missions such as ASW, ASuW or Sea Control? NATO's SNMGs are a good example, carrying a bunch of different helicopters (in some rare cases two of same type). Setting up an ASW box with three different ASW helos in 1/3rd rotation assigned will not really work here since the AI currently launches all three helicopter then. Especially in big scenarios, it would come in very useful if Command could handle this so the player could focus his attention on other things going on.

Thanks for considering!

Supreme
skorpio667
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by skorpio667 »


Today I posted a spreadsheet for strike planning and one of the posters mentioned the progress of the in-game planner. Then a thought hit me: perhaps it is possible for the dev's to implement a stage were we can set a launch time for a strike (already possible with the mission planner) but also set a manual plot before a mission is launched?

Then we could enjoy multi axis strikes with a orchestrated time of impact with the use of external strike planners and manual control over speed and altitude!

Skorpio
iborg
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:07 pm

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by iborg »

I voted for ToT planner.
AN idea I didn't see (I think) mentioned : being able to set escorts for patrol and support missions. Example : setting a support mission with a tanker or AEW plane, and assigning a fighter escort to it.
ComDev
Posts: 3116
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Contact:

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by ComDev »

Removed items added in v1.11 [:D]
Image

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!
User avatar
tjhkkr
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:15 pm
Contact:

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by tjhkkr »

Does the staff look at this poll any more?
I am more curious than anything... you guys already do so much for this game.
Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.
thewood1
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by thewood1 »

I haven't seen this request yet...

Be able to create multiple use profiles. Profiles would include all sensor settings, vector settings, view settings, and maybe even game settings. This would allow a player to create multiple profiles that can be quickly loaded on scenario start.

For example...I might have an ASW profile that turns off certain range circles and keeps sonar and ASW weapons turned on.

The genesis of the idea is that I spend 10-15 minutes every sceanrio adjusting and changing all the settings to match the type of scenario or size of scenario.
Graf Leinsdorf
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:17 am

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Graf Leinsdorf »

As already proposed in an other thread, I wonder whether with 1.11 or following some other improvements may be devised, especially in details of feedback after battle.
More often than not the player has troubles in discovering which platform has destroyed or damaged what, getting only the overall losses but not knowing which of his assets has achieved each one. This information doesn't seem to be got entirely through running message logs, where damage suffered is detailed but not the platform which caused it. Would it be possible to add a tag to the losses report with this kind of data? Or include it in lines of the message log?
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12407
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Sardaukar »

Request:

Changing simulation Stop/Start hotkey from F12 to spacebar. It'd be very convenient to many users, I'd think. Especially when on laptop F12 is vry small key.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Gizzmoe
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:36 am
Location: Germany

RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

Post by Gizzmoe »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Request:

Changing simulation Stop/Start hotkey from F12 to spacebar.

Yes, that would be very convenient.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”