Matrix Games Forums

you won't have immediate real time communications with a submerged submarine and will instead get real time if they are close to the surface and can use SATCOM or slow comms replicating the slow low bandwidth of the ultra low frequency radio that they use to talk to submerged subs.
I hate comparing game platforms because it is unfair to the hard work of all the people involved, but did not the later iterations of Harpoon II have something like that? The submarines would go off the grid? But if I remember correctly, you could also turn that feature off.

This looks like cool new feature. I wonder if this is a mat the user adds on or if they are planning to have this from google maps etc.

Any chance that naval boardings will be modelled? The ability to "Capture" a ship?

How will TacView work in CMO? At the moment, when i use TacView [DCS World] i can see every active unit [doesn't matter if in LoS or in Radar range], but this can not be the task of TacView during the play.

ORIGINAL: Ghost0815
How will TacView work in CMO? At the moment, when i use TacView [DCS World] i can see every active unit [doesn't matter if in LoS or in Radar range], but this can not be the task of TacView during the play.

Correct, this is an inherent limitation of Tacview at the moment.

ORIGINAL: cdnice
Any chance that naval boardings will be modelled? The ability to "Capture" a ship?

Isn't this already doable through scripting?

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

ORIGINAL: Hoeist6634

I am not all happy with the fact that you have to pay extra for Tacview and of course, wouldn't you forget, the game itself. I hope that the publishers will make some gesture towards the gamers in 'combining' this game with Tacview.

TacView is a different program produced by a different company. Both had to work together to add the integration and both deserve to be paid for their product. TacView is an extra not a requisite you are not being asked to buy 2 games you are being offered one game and one extra piece of software. Owners of CMANO are also already getting a discount as it is so it will be fine

Correct. I would also point out that WarfareSims does not make a single dime out of Tacview sales.

Holy sh*t! It looks gorgeus!

[insert Fry's "Shut up and take my money!" GIF]

That would be this...

-C

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

This looks like cool new feature. I wonder if this is a mat the user adds on or if they are planning to have this from google maps etc.

I would like to know this, too.
I'll buy C:MO instantly when it comes out. [&o]

ORIGINAL: LORDPrometheus

ORIGINAL: Filitch
...

I'm guessing it means you won't have immediate real time communications with a submerged submarine and will instead get real time if they are close to the surface and can use SATCOM or slow comms replicating the slow low bandwidth of the ultra low frequency radio that they use to talk to submerged subs.

This does bring up the question or just how communications will work when they can be so readily disrupted. I worry it may turn subs into platforms that you just set on a mission and forget about because you can't directly control them. I guess a possible mechanic is to allow you to select a unit as your command platform and get full real-time from it and then delayed or disrupted comms from the rest

Thanks. I waiting something like this. Similar behavior is implemented in the Harpoon series. And this is more realstic. The next step to modeling of a situation awareness - to see own forces only if are detected by sensor or with a delay, such delay will simulate report on location.

I attempted to run "Desert Storm - Instant Thunder (KTO & Eastern Iraq)" by Kennetho using his latest version. My new computer has an Intel I-9 9900K processor with 32 GB ram. Yet, the scenario ran somewhat slow and after one-half hour of game time it was almost stalled and refused to create a saved game file.

I am wondering if CMO will handle these monster scenarios better than CMANO. If so, I'll put off playing monster scenarios until CMO comes out.

This is definitely worthy of a post.

I will definitely buy this in the first week of release, whatever the circumstances.

If there is one thing I hope that will be fixed it is the disjointed PoHs of AAA and the current endgame modifiers for AAA that overall makes AAA very underpowered under almost all circumstances, even when it historically was very effective.

At present a radar controlled Twin Oerlikon GDF-005s w Prox-fuzed PFHE ammo with a Skyguard FCS has a PoH of only 20 % at max, even if it's engaging a completely straight flying non-maneuvering target such as a SS-N-2 Styx passing at 200 meters ASL and almost straight over the pair of Oerlikon GDF-005 guns. After modifiers have been applied, expect less than 5 percent chance of a hit.

At present a pair of Twin Oerlikons GDF-005s with a first generation 1970s Skyguard fire control system with the supposedly highly effective AHEAD ammunition has a PoH of 25 % but the much more modern 2010s Skyshield system with current radar and electrooptics with the same ammunition only has a PoH of 20 %.

And where a Breda/Otobreda/Otomelara 76/62 Super Rapido will almost always end up with a 1 or 0 percent chance of hitting a target with four pre-fragmented HE rounds fitted with the same highly advanced fuze that the DART ammunition uses, even if it's a relatively large, quite non-maneuverable target at 0,5 nautical miles such as a helicopter flying at only 120 kn.

The AAA hit system is a mess and makes AAA practically useless, mostly because the max PoHs of the systems are almost always too low and the modifiers are not flexible enough. It's not realistic that there is no difference in the chance of a AAA system scoring a hit on an overflying fighter 1) if a fighter is flying at 350 kn at 305 m AGL straight at and then over a AAA system it hasn't discovered and 2) if the AAA system's location is known by the pilot and the fighter is passing at 600 m AGL 0.75 nm away.
For almost all AAA systems the final PoH will be 0 or 1 % chance of a hit anyways which makes AAA much less of a threat than what it actually was historically, for example for US forces in Vietnam.

If this would be fixed in this new Game it would make my day, no, my month.

Regardless, I will of course by the game.

ORIGINAL: britten

ORIGINAL: RodionHerrera

I have a feeling this will be a BIG debate in the coming months... on why CMO isn't an "upgrade" of CMANO (and by upgrade, meaning, current CMANO owners shouldn't pay for CMO in full and just pay a smaller amount instead because they feel they are just "upgrading" from being CMANO users), so here's my two cents. I actually like the fact that this is going to be a separate product, and I'm willing to shelve out money to get it.

The main reason I like that it's a new product is simple--it's completely re-written from the ground up, and thus the limitations of the old engine are gone--they took a more proactive route which means that this new engine looks forward and is more anticipatory of new miltech that might come out soon and need to be integrated into CMO. As a former computer science major, I do understand that sometimes, just trying to keep patching something up just to keep current or to keep bugs away, is not always a good solution--sometimes rewriting things from the ground up with more efficient code and algos can really make software shine.

Another reason is that I do like to see the old CMANO still exist as-is (and hopefully with continual support from Matrix/Slitherine/WS) because it's still a great game as it is.

One final reason why I like CMO to be a separate product is to support the devs. This is a niche product, and unlike what teenaged gamers nowadays want in a game, CMANO/CMO is not that "in demand" and thus I would think it's hard for a company like MatrixGames to really sell and market such a niche product, and they really need the support of the community so that they can keep on improving.

To those among you here who are fans of the ARMA series of games, this situation is akin to how Arma 2 users felt when Arma 3 was announced--they secretly wished that somehow, Arma 3 was just an "improvement" of Arma 2, and that they, the players wouldn't have to pay a FULL price for a new product and rather just pay a smaller fee and receive the new Arma 3 as an "upgrade"... that never happened, and I think it was for the good of the incoming product, and now it's clear that Arma 3 being a separate product that users pay separately for, was a good decision.

This is an excellent post. I totally agree and already reserved money for C:MO. I am sure it will be a great success.

I paid $125 for similar highly realistic simulator that is used by the military and is probably an even more niche product-Steel Beasts Pro. It recently came out with a major upgrade that changes the sim and did charge a small fee that I was happy to pay. There also wasn't a separate product that added feature that you had to purchase separately either.

At the end of the day it would be nice to get a discounted price for the upgrade to CMANO and the TacView add-on. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, but I suspect that there will be plenty who will pay whatever it takes.

As for the base game and especially TacView-will that be easily moddable? One thing I really like about games like Total War and Steam workshop is the mods. I'm certain if Tac View is easily modable we will see some really great mods for it.

The only other thing I really want is MULTIPLAYER. It sounds like the existing CMANO already has TAC View-but only for the military or defense agencies. Is multiplayer also already available for the military or defense agency versions?

My upgrade to 6th Gen Core cpus comes at the right time.[:D]

All I hope for the new version is proper simulation of Soviet SAM systems, like pure command guidance and antiair missile command centers (they had datalinks for multiple missile site integration and information sharing). In proper hands, these old missiles can combine with advance radar systems and bring much surprise to opponent, like serbia's shotdown of F-117).

...and a more advanced interface for unit editing? I want my AEGIS battleship without using INI files.

...and a light color interface for laptop use? I play this on commute bus.

Thanks for all the works now and future.

Outstanding news! Looking forward to the release. Thanks for all the work on this excellent and growing simulation.

ORIGINAL: DONNIE67
Hi

I have a question regarding chains of war. Will all features be available or only those for the CE. I recall there were a few features like comms jamming that were reserved for Pro use.

Thank you and best wishes.

This time around we are also including several features that were previously PE-only (Support for real-time streaming to Tacview, the LOS tool, the ability to merge scenarios, and customizable aircraft formations). However, the other PE-only features remain PE-only.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
As for the base game and especially TacView-will that be easily moddable? One thing I really like about games like Total War and Steam workshop is the mods. I'm certain if Tac View is easily modable we will see some really great mods for it.

Tacview is quite moddable. You can add your own custom 3D models, terrain elevation files, and map textures. We will explain how to do this when we talk more about this feature.

I see from the printscreens that the development has started already early
So it seems to me it could be released in near future..... (maybe already this year)

So i hope no wait for several years i hope [&o]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
...the ability to merge scenarios...

Sorry, what does this mean?