Matrix Games Forums

Count Sessine wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:14 pm

Gunner98 wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:38 am The ability to carry units over from one scenario to the next will allow a long requested 'Linked Campaign', something that would add a layer of depth to the gameplay experience.

I support this statement

Parel803 wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:18 pm

Count Sessine wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:14 pm

Gunner98 wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:38 am The ability to carry units over from one scenario to the next will allow a long requested 'Linked Campaign', something that would add a layer of depth to the gameplay experience.

I support this statement

Me too

KC45 wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:45 pm

Parel803 wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:18 pm

Count Sessine wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:14 pm

I support this statement

Me too

Don't we have this already? As merge scenario function. I have never used that one, so I am not 100% sure but I think we have this.

trevor999 wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 12:34 am Just a few suggestions
1. Aircraft on airfield, SAM and ground unit decoys (eg. During the Kosovo conflict the USAF hit as many Serbian decoys as they did real targets)
2. Separate training levels for air, land and naval forces, not just a global "veteran", "cadet" etc.
3. In the scenario editor, a menu that shows aircraft capacity by size - X# extra large, X# large etc.
4. Add deployment times to self propelled units - SAMs, artillery etc. From a few minutes to several hours. Also include in unit model if they can fire on the move or must stop first.
5. Underground/mountain a/c shelters for VL aircraft.
6. Ground unit entrenchment containers - dug in, overhead cover etc
7. Anti helo mines, land minefields
8. Balloons, aerostats etc for area denial, EW, surveillance, recce, AD, anti-rotary wing nets, barrage balloons etc

Bashkire wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:26 am I've submitted a loadout change / creation request on the GitHub but I want to suggest this to prevent users having to create reams and reams of change requests in the future.

In the Mission Editor screen, for strike missions, I suggest adding boxes to specify ingress, attack and egress altitudes and speeds to override the default loadout settings. Leaving the boxes blank would use the default settings, of course. This will allow scenario designers to create missions against players that are harder to detect and create more of a challenge, as well as allowing players to reduce the amount that they are required to micromanage their units by specifying parameters during the mission planning stage and maintain a grand overall picture, instead of waiting for a unit to take off, select it, and go into the unit settings to adjust speed and altitude.

If there are questions, please do ask and I'll do all I can to defend this idea and I hope to see it implemented in the near future!

KC45 wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:41 pm

Bashkire wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:26 am I've submitted a loadout change / creation request on the GitHub but I want to suggest this to prevent users having to create reams and reams of change requests in the future.

In the Mission Editor screen, for strike missions, I suggest adding boxes to specify ingress, attack and egress altitudes and speeds to override the default loadout settings. Leaving the boxes blank would use the default settings, of course. This will allow scenario designers to create missions against players that are harder to detect and create more of a challenge, as well as allowing players to reduce the amount that they are required to micromanage their units by specifying parameters during the mission planning stage and maintain a grand overall picture, instead of waiting for a unit to take off, select it, and go into the unit settings to adjust speed and altitude.

If there are questions, please do ask and I'll do all I can to defend this idea and I hope to see it implemented in the near future!

I believe we already have this feature as Flight Planner currently in beta.

Mitchell_Gant wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:19 am I have only one request for CMO and that's to include the Tacview option currently only in the PE version, as in the ability to record and playback mission replays for ACMI analysis so we can finally have a proper record for AAR's.

When I bought CMO I thought this was a standard feature included in the Tacview Pro bundle - it would've been nice if this was made more obvious on the store page when I bought it that it was missing. Better still, just add the option, thanks!

DavidRN wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:54 am When fast forwarding time to be able to set when a hostile unit is found the time switches back to x1.

DB

Dimitris wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:28 am

DavidRN wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:54 am When fast forwarding time to be able to set when a hostile unit is found the time switches back to x1.

DB

Pretty sure you can do this already, no? You can individually set the "New contact" or "Contact change" message types to set time-accel to real-time, from the message options.