CMO RUNNING POLL - Gameplay feature requests

[thewood1]

""Observe" or "Follow" order for units, specifically air units, with distance and altitude options. In a scenario that starts with side "unfriendly" but not "hostile" and/or hostilities are imminent, it would be nice to be able to follow/observe and adversary's a/c."

This is very doable now. Just add a RP or two locked to the contact and then assign mission to that RP. If you want to get fancy you can use ATO to assign, reassign, or cancel the mission automatically.

That seems pretty complicated. After all, you can select a unit, then select a target to attack (manual or auto). It seems to me it would work just as well to have an "observe" command. Maybe default just at A2A weapons range or radar range.

Is it possible in LUA to program a unit to take a random path? If so, programming a specific mission to observe would be difficult at best.

Its not difficult at all. Set RP to contact. Build patrol mission at the RP. Not sure how an observe mission would be any simpler. There are multiple ways to skin this.

[trevor999]

1. The ability to create a saveable munitions template for ammo bunkers.

2. Option to have a limit on how much that can be stored in an ammo bunker/shelter/pad container. Perhaps somewhat larger inventory mountain ammo bunkers. Somehow I doubt you can store 160x AIM-120's or 500x Mk 84's in a typical surface bunker. This may be useful since supply modeling became a thing, requiring munitions transport from a larger dump or depot to an air base or ground unit.

3. Option to enable reliability rates on mounted (on a/c, ships or ground launchers) munitions
https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-116.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-97-134.pdf

Regards

[orca]

Additional formation editor types that could be used for naval groups.

For example, formations in which the lead ship and possibly additional high value ships are placed in the center with escorts surrounding. Even better and more sophisticated would be if the escorts could be tagged something along the lines as inner ring or picket with appropriate spacing selection and positioning based on the expected enemy position.

The editor robustly allows the user to properly manually position ships as needed but this breaks down if any of the ships are destroyed. A formation type that would adjust if groups join/leave the group would solve this for the AI.

[thewood1]

The formation editor was built so that you can build your own formations and make them part of the drop down list.

btw, there are also ways to dynamically adjust the formation. I played around with that quite a bit a couple years ago.

Screenshot 2024-08-20 122207.jpg (787.93 KiB) Viewed 2728 times

[Nikel]

History of card driven boardgames.

https://www.meeplemountain.com/articles ... -wargames/



Just wondering if the special actions could be displayed (optionally), as cards.


And this is an art.

https://theboardgamingway.com/the-art-o ... -analysis/

[blu3s]

Just wondering if the special actions could be displayed (optionally), as cards.

You can create them with HTML assign them a function using Lua and UI_CallAdvancedHTMLDialog()

[FifthDomain]

Good Evening

Request the ability to change the fuel type stored in refueling ships.

Request the ability to Add/Remove properties Flags on units.

[Nikel]

You can create them with HTML assign them a function using Lua and UI_CallAdvancedHTMLDialog()

Oh, thanks, I did not know it

In what scenarios, that you know, was it made this way?

[blu3s]

to my knowledge in any of them. I would have liked to include it in my scenario on kosovo but I have barely had time to look at it again .

[Nikel]

So those you displayed are the first ones?

Then congrats and well done

Waiting for your updated scenario and of course the engine!

Hope in the future you may create a tutorial for scenario designers.

[blu3s]

I guess.


the new web engine allows you to create some very cool features. I hope players can take advantage of this to develop their own functions and visualizations and, who knows, maybe integrate them into the UI in the future.

[Nikel]

Very powerful indeed.

Thanks for showing us this feature

[Cajer]

I saw that real time multiplayer is in development. Are there any rough timelines on when we can expect it to come out?

[Quark73]

Quality of Life: Make the "Clear Message Log" Option available as button in Message Log window.

[RoryMaeda]

More cargo-able personnel options in the database

Currently, I only see "stranded personnel" as a unit that can actually move once unloaded
I'd love to see more options. "Personnel" is currently only a mount. Could also be made as a cargo-able unit that can move?
I noticed "Spy" doesn't move anymore, either. I had to use stranded personnel for that.

I use people a lot, in my multi-scenario. I'm kinda turning it into a RPG

[RoryMaeda]

Oh,

Another thing I noticed, is that, few days ago, when I first started my RPG scenario, I was able to load small cargo (containers) into ships like Arleigh Burke, LCS, and others, but now (maybe, since then, there has been a hotfix or small update -- I haven't noticed), these ships are only able to load up to personnel-size cargo (the only two compatible containers are pallet container inserts, which can load like 90kg each) which seem to me like they should, in fact, be able to load bigger containers, at least pallet containers, if not even ISO containers (LCS especially has a large configurable storage space)

Bring back these ships to small cargo capacity, maybe? They have stupidly large capacities anyway, which means, if I wanted to fill them up, I'd need to setup like a hundred pallet container inserts

[FifthDomain]

Can i request a maps DLC that has a good opentopo and a google maps style map with good detail that is not fetched from online.

Thank you.

[Blast33]

For a SAM system or an Air to Air missile to engage a receding target is difficult. The engagement envelope of a missile is much less than an approaching target.
It looks that the firing doctrine now, is the same for approaching and receding targets and SAMs fire a lot of missiles who do not hit. (sometimes that is nice when they shoot at you, but frustrating if your side is shooting missiles to waste)
Example:

mig23m-3.gif (39.75 KiB) Viewed 1816 times

In this example the difference for the AIM-7F is 26 km for approaching and only 16 for receding. That is a big difference.

What if there is a extra collum in the WRA section for the receding targets added to the right side, something like this:

Clipboard05.jpg (76.25 KiB) Viewed 1813 times

CMO has to find a way to make a SAM understand that the target is going away from the SAM site and falls in this receding category.
Idea?

[Dimitris]

a good opentopo and a google maps style map with good detail that is not fetched from online.

So, which address do we ship the 24TB HDD to?

[Dimitris]

For a SAM system or an Air to Air missile to engage a receding target is difficult. The engagement envelope of a missile is much less than an approaching target.
It looks that the firing doctrine now, is the same for approaching and receding targets and SAMs fire a lot of missiles who do not hit. (sometimes that is nice when they shoot at you, but frustrating if your side is shooting missiles to waste)
Example:
mig23m-3.gif



In this example the difference for the AIM-7F is 26 km for approaching and only 16 for receding. That is a big difference.

What if there is a extra collum in the WRA section for the receding targets added to the right side, something like this:
Clipboard05.jpg


CMO has to find a way to make a SAM understand that the target is going away from the SAM site and falls in this receding category.
Idea?

The target's direction is already taken into account.

In all WRA-range settings _except_ NEZ, the DLZ calculation is made with the assumption that, after firing the weapon, the target will maintain its at-launch heading, speed and rate of climb/dive. This is used as the baseline target trajectory assumption during the DLZ-simulated flyout.

The catch is, of course, that the target may not obey this assumption.

NEZ is the exception: It instead assumes that the target will, at the moment of launch, turn tail instantly (unrealistic but it's generally a pessimistic assumption) and run away. If the target class is unknown, its current speed is assumed; if it's class-identified, its maximum possible speed at the given altitude is assumed. (This is why the NEZ-enforced launch range totally craters against identified high-performance fighters).

So, the choice is yours: You can either pick any of the range-percentage values (and run the risk that the target will change direction and accelerate after launch, thus ruining your shot), or stick to NEZ and get an _almost_ guarantee of of kinematically reaching out to the target - at the cost of almost point-blank launch range, especially with pre-Meteor missiles.