RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[Laqueesha]

I have a request for sound/audio:

Could you have custom music files play in-game from shortcuts, to save drive space? Some games like GTA V and GTA IV have this, where you can just drop an MP3 shortcut into the custom music folder and it'll play in-game; no need to put the entire file in.

[JPFisher55]

I would like to see a change in how ammo is handled. IMO, all airbases and ports should automatically act like the unlimited option for ammo is selected.
The limited or unlimited ammo option should only apply to ships. To load magazines at airbases or ports requires too many weapons to be practicable. Due
to the carrier magazines, this is not true of ships. Thus, you could use the limited ammo option even with a scenario with lots of airbases and ports and
not worry about loading the airbases or ports.

In the future, if cargo unloading is enabled, then you might have an option in which an airbase or port would have to receive so many tons of general cargo
per week to continue to arm planes or ships.

[ncc1701e]

Why only one feature could be chosen? This is very difficult to balance between several of them. Your top three features would give more flexibility imho.

Cheers

[Eggstor]

Request for submarine mission transit/patrol depth - make it relative to the layer like the manual depth settings. The depth of the layer is variable depending on location, and an absolute depth can put a sub above, in, or under the layer.

[Cousteau]

If airport have unlimited ammos, this would render unnecessary the possibility of destroying the stock of ammunition so that the aircraft of this airport become useless

[Gunner98]

Fully understand the issues associated with modeling base refueling - not asking for that, really.

Just came across a couple articles about the USMC F-35's in Japan and getting them ready for rapid turn around from austere sites:

http://www.janes.com/article/69556/usmc ... pabilities
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... p-in-japan

I must say that I have never before even considered that you would (could) refuel from a Hurc on the ground - but why not!

So I guess what I am asking for is two things:

1) Ability for a scenario author to turn base refueling OFF, so that it was not automatic, selectable at a specific base.
2) Ability to refuel from a Tanker (and I suppose a tanker truck land facility) on the ground.

My thought is a scenario where a player needs to seize a base, but because the fuel could be (or is) contaminated, or destroyed - or indeed the base is simply a parking lot, piece of highway or a plowed piece of Arctic ice. You cannot refuel there.

Player then needs to fly in KC-130s (or something similar) and park them with fuel, as well as ammo (Lua function here) etc to use the base as a Forward Operating Base

I think you can achieve this with VP's by having the KC-130s accumulate points for remaining on the ground - but that is a workaround at best.

Anyway - this is a very specific request and probably entails a bunch of work. It is not critical but if you could put it on your list for 'someday' it would be great,

BTW - this also speaks to the Quick Turn Around capability of the F-35B - nice!

Thanks for the great work

B

[AlGrant]

Hi Gunner,

I like the idea of being able to establish Forward Arming & Relueling Points (FARP) and did mention it at some point in the past. There is a PDF on this link about it http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA610304
pg10 of the PDF
"The Air Force defines FARP as “fuel’s [sic] operations used to hot refuel aircraft in areas where fuel is otherwise not available.
Fuel is transferred from a source aircraft’s (C-130, C-17, or C-5) internal tanks to receiver aircraft."

In the DB there is already a Support Plt (Helicopter Expeditionary Refueling System) (DBID #248) that acts like a mobile airfield for helos/Ospreys but they still take 2hr to Ready from landing.

I also think that being able to land NOT refuel and take off again would help with other missions types that need an aircraft to land for a short period of time and then get airborne again (CASEVAC, Cargo/troop delivery etc).

[stilesw]

Forward Arming & Relueling Points

AlGrant,

Thanks - excellent reference, thanks for posting the link. I've included the .pdf document to the unofficial CMANO reference library. As always, anyone who wishes to access this Dropbox library please PM me with your email address.

-Wayne Stiles

[Hestia]

This poll looks like a cookie jar and I'm allowed to pick only one cookie. How cruel is that? [:(]

[michaelm75au]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it would be handy if you could add 'notes' to a group. You can rename the group to a short type 'note', but this is not useful if there are Lua scripts which use the group's name - you don't want to muck with it.
This could be handy for long scenarios. A note such as 'acting convoy escort. Re-task to ASW when new escorts arrive'. The note would be shown when you mouse-over/select the group. Downside would be that it take up more space on the map display.
I am thinking that this should only be on groups rather than every unit.

[Filitch]

Could I share some ideas?

- show in Contact report window information about sensor (and its carrier) which detected this contact.
- tool to visualize real detection area of radars on different altitudes

[Dan109]

Request - manual jettison of external wetpoints and a doctrine for external jettison when "once inside known enemy radar coverage". This would allow stealth aircraft to carry external fuel on the ingress, remain stealthy as possible until target, and refuel on the egress when tankers which have only been brought in now that the space is known to be cleared.

Currently, only doctrine is to jettison once under attack, which is certainly a no brainer when attacked (common doctrine in vietnam) but in 5G, the idea is to never be seen in the first place. Knowing the range of enemy stealth aircraft is critical, so you can plan to intercept their tankers. Having this doctrine would make that tactic more difficult to implement.

[HalfLifeExpert]

Since some of the features have been added, perhaps a new poll should be put up without those features for a fresh survey

[TitaniumTrout]

Request Allow player to open Saved Games in any location, not just in the Scenarios folder.

[Dan109]

Request(s) -

1. fuel and external drop tanks. It was VERY nice to see that external drop tanks are taken into consideration on each loadout for fuel capacity and if using "jettison when under attack" (a very realistic doctrine which IMO should be on by default for realism), your total fuel capacity changes. And, external fuel is used first, great! However, there is no way in command to know the status of external tanks, how much fuel is in them. I'd like to see that. Now I'm not sure if even the most modern aircraft have fuel gauges for their external tanks, but from what I have read, older fighter pilots (using craft that certainly did not have this ability) always relied on their internal fuel gauge when carrying drop tanks to know if they are exhausted. If still full, you still have juice in those tanks. Therefore I'd like to see one more line added to the fuel information, showing internal fuel amount. This line can even be variable, to remind the player that this craft is carrying external fuel (no way to really know that unless you look up the details in the database or checkout the loadout at the airfield).

2. total fuel limit - On the same line, I'd also like to see the static amount of total fuel the aircraft can carry...which would include drop tank capacity (its variable, because they might have been dropped). When I refuel an aircraft, its tough to know how much fuel the aircraft will suck up, besides looking at the fuel graphic display and making a very rough guess. Its a complete arse-pain to try to make these calculations manually. First of all, are they using JP-5 or JP-8? Fuels have a variable density, which one to use? In the database, it only describes the volume of fuel carried, not the weight.

3. Fuel Weight - Metric or Imperial? This is purely asthetics. Distance, definitely NATO embraces that, going back to defining ammunition cartridge sizes as an easy example. I can't find any examples where NATO "forces its members" to use metric for weight. I know the database has all weight in metric, including fuel. Its just VERY strange to be using American aircraft and seeing metric weights for fuel, seems very unnatural. I'm sure US tanker operators need to keep that in the know, as they would work with NATO forces that know their craft by metric. But when playing US only scenarios, distance (Nautical Miles used for all distances in Command, which is ok) doesn't 'bother' me, its just the fuel weight. I don't even have any suggestions, in an infinite dev resource world, of how to address this. Too many options for too many players...so, this is just a mild complaint/observation. [8D]

[AFIntel]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Since some of the features have been added, perhaps a new poll should be put up without those features for a fresh survey

+1.

Unless I'm missing something, is there a way to reset my votes?

I originally voted on this poll several years ago. I honestly can't remember if any of my selections were implemented. But I'd like the option of voting on this new, updated poll.

[Owllord]

Not sure if this has been suggested, but would it perhaps be possible to define message popups for lost units by unit type, e.g. facility, air and so on? I think this would be quite useful in scenarios featuring ground units under player control, as this way you could still be informed about air losses without being notified about every lost infantry unit.

[daveoreno]

I think it would be interesting to some day add "Bolters" and Wave Offs" to carrier ops. The small percentage could be more significant during night ops or high sea states.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: daveoreno@hotmail.com

I think it would be interesting to some day add "Bolters" and Wave Offs" to carrier ops. The small percentage could be more significant during night ops or high sea states.

Now that we're getting an aircraft damage model in Chains of War, system casualties is something that would be very interesting to explore. There's already some options for doing it in lua...it would be an interesting option to have systems faults/mishaps at historic rates, scaled based on proficiency level. Would give the player some interesting options as to press with a less-than-FMC unit or wait until maintenance is completed.

Obviously, historic MTBF for most systems in game are classified, so it's a huge data gap, but the devs have surprised us before.

[Peter66]

My feature request is generic cargo. The new cargo is fantastic and a huge addition. However all of it is exceptionally specific in what it is.

By having a generic cargo, just like before this can be defined as anything. Be that, humanitarian aid. Spare parts. Air mail or any number of possibilities. Having cargo that can fill any role in 0.5/1/2/5 etc ton roles would be very nice. This would allow different types of scenarios such as aid relief or grounding aircraft via maintenance until parts have arrived etc.