What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
I was testing the warheads by making modifications to them within the DB3K database. Sorry, it cannot be done by users.Excuse me, but...how do you edit weapon's warhead DP?!
+1ORIGINAL: LargeDiameterBomb
My suggestion is simply that CMO should include short keys to switch from these brand new and so beautiful different map types.
ORIGINAL: Scar79
It would be cool if the game could remember the position and size of the Main, Message Log and 3D window. Or even make some sort of the "working layout", with Message Log and 3D window docked to the left from the Main, with ability to change their relative size with a help of movable borders.
Repost from: fb.asp?m=4731463
ORIGINAL: Primarchx
It's not up there but more sonar data would be nice and make ASW ops more engaging. Realtime info about platform self-noise, contact sound strength and sensor acuity at current speed would all be very useful in prosecuting sonar targets.
ORIGINAL: Scorpion86
Well, I'm just gonna copy-paste some of my suggestions from a previous thread:
1 - A way of tweaking an aircraft's refuelling logic
I can't count the number of times I was in the middle of a strike when the attacking aircraft decided to go refuel all on it's own and fly 300 miles to the nearest tanker. And when I stopped it manually, it would go back to refuelling.
Today, when I want to control a single aircraft's refuelling logic, all you have is the "allow refuelling/do not refuel" drop down menu. But when you have a mission, you can tell the aircraft on patrol to only refuel from tankers of mission X, to only refuel if there's a tanker within Y miles, or to only refuel when you're down to W% of fuel. That would be nice to have for aircraft not assigned to a mission as well.
Basicly I want the options from the menu in the attached picture in the Doctrine options, with the "search for tanker" option expressed in "BINGO + percentage fuel remaining" instead of just "percent fuel remaining".
2 - Have WRA ranges for weapons set in percentage of range rather than 5nm increments
When I was play-testing my latest scenario, For The Honour Of The Republic (*cough*shameless self-promotion*cough*), I had Portuguese AF A-7Ps armed with AIM-9L-1 missiles going against Yak-38M Forgers armed with R-60M Aphids.
The AIM-9L-1 has a 10nm range, but the WRA only allows me to set the automatic firing range between the full 10nm or 5nm, nothing else. If I fired the AIM-9s at 10nm, the Forgers would shake them, if I fired them at 5nm, my fighters would be close enough to be shot at by the Aphids. If I could set the auto-fire distance to 75% of the range, that would be ideal.
Having the ranges of weapons in the WRA menu set in 5nm increments may be more intuitive, but it penalises scenarios using shorter-ranged weapons, like mid-to-late cold war fighter duels.
Another option is a sliding scale: increments of 2nm for ranges from 0 to 20nm, increments of 5nm for ranges from 20 to 100nm, and of 10nm for ranges >100nm.
3 - Unit "Scoreboard"
This is the least serious request of the three, but what the hell, dreaming pays no tax, so here we go:
It would be neat to have some sort of scoreboard during the mission to see which unit behaved better during the scenario. Things like, best ace, best ground attacker, unit that suppressed more SAM sites, etc, etc...
And I add another thing I thought of since:
4 - More scriptless trigger/action options
I came upon this when designing my own scenario. A very simple thing I wanted to do in my scenario was changing a side's EMCON. But sadly I couldn't do that without LUA. The "change EMCON" action was literally a one-line script.
I know this may appear deceptively simple for a layman, but it would make mission-making simpler for people without coding knowledge.
ORIGINAL: Grazyn
I'd really love to have a search tool for the cargo list.
ORIGINAL: LMychajluk
Instead of just showing the Score, how about a more detailed breakdown once the Scenario is ended? Most of the info is already in Losses/Expenditures, but maybe summarize / compare it?
Something like, by unit types (5th Gen Fighters, 4th Gen Fighters, bombers, DDG, etc...):
"You lost 35% less <Unit Types> vs. the Enemy", or
"You lost 1 DDG vs. 3 enemy DDGs lost"
You can even break down expenditure by Weapon Type -
"You expended 135 BVR AA weapons vs. the enemy's 158". (Basically, one line per unit / weapon type.)
Yes, it may be lopsided in some scenarios (like an Air Force vs Naval Units), but that's OK.
"You expended 39 Long Range SAMS vs the enemy's 0"
"You expended 0 Guided Air-To-Ground Weapons vs the enemy's 32"
"You lost 0 Multi-Role Attack Aircraft vs the enemy's 5"
"You lost 1 Frigate vs. the enemy's 0"
It may take a minute to crunch the numbers, but it only needs to happen once at the end of the scenario.
Maybe even add the ability (via LUA events?) for Scenario Authors to include their own items to the summary, like "3 out of 4 Primary Targets Destroyed", or "Significant (>80%) of enemy air losses incurred."
ORIGINAL: DONNIE67
planes that are airborne should be added to the flight ops screen.
ORIGINAL: Grazyn
I really wish there was a way to disable the new feature of borders and coastlines fading out as you zoom in. Currently, the lines disappear completely at a camera altitude of 400 km, which makes it really hard to set up "border-clash" scenarios or exclusion zones, or fine-tuned navigation (since the satellite map doesn't always overlap the actual coast). I don't quite understand what prompted such a change...
ORIGINAL: ultradave
There may be a technical reason why they aren't there anymore, but would it be possible to bring back some more of the speed-up options?
I find the 15 sec, 1 minute and 5 minute options really useful in submarine scenarios where movement is very slow, or where significant movement needs to happen to close range. The current flaming afterburner speed is a little drastic on my machine, and I find myself nervously ready to stop it before it gets out of hand.
This is definitely a low priority request and nothing that is broken.
ORIGINAL: oomiz
The thing I absolutely miss the most is a simple volume control.
Not actually a gameplay request and probably a much smaller fix than most things on that list.
But forgetting to adjust the volume mixer on mission startup and getting your ears blown off gets old really quick.
ORIGINAL: boogabooga
In Aircraft entries in the Database, I think that it would make more sense to put the hyperlinks to the weapons DB entries in with the Aircraft Stores, rather than Aircraft Loadouts. That way, when one looks through the stores and thinks "what is that one?," the hyperlink is right there, no need to comb through loadouts to try to find it again. Also, the hyperlinks are easier to click on in the stores section because there is more space between them.
The CMNAO way of putting them in BOTH places is fine, too.
Just imagery rasters or actual elevation data? The former is already possible IIRC.ORIGINAL: bns130
Ability to natively import GeoTIFF maps into the scenario editor.
This is best left to actual GIS programs IMHO.Ability to georectify a jpeg or png image for use as a map.
ORIGINAL: TalonCG2
Feature request - Logistics and transport of supplies
I love the larger, more complex and longer lasting scenarios. This wouldn't really apply to short duration scenarios, but here goes...
Fuel, either a generic non-specific all use, or broken up into categories of ship/aviation/ground unit. Transported by rail, truck, ship or plane to other "frontline" bases.
Munitions, generic "ammo" that will increase by a fixed amount determined by capacity of the transport and what units call the base their home. Or a more complex and specific transport of individual weapons/ammo.
The generic versions would be easier to implement, but not as realistic, but a good compromise over specific items.
Thoughts?
ORIGINAL: guanotwozero
Request: Investigate contact.
if a contact flies into a patrol area, friendlies will autonomously investigate to make an ID. They only need to fly close enough for the sensors to do that.
Conversely if there is no such patrol area (or contact is outside it), there is no way to investigate other than setting an intercept course by estimating "close enough".
I suggest adding an "investigate" action, so that an aircraft will fly just close enough to make the ID (with current EMCON). Thereafter it returns to its prior mission/posture. This could also work for surface & land contacts.
