RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[SakiNoE]

No objections to the idea... but given the scope of play (days or at most weeks), would it be 'realistic'?

Not sure why it wouldn't be. There has been at least one case of a person becoming an "ace-in-a-day" since WW2 [Muhammed Mahmood Alam, in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, famous for (according to the PAF) downing 5 IAF Hawker Hunters in 1 minute]. Israeli pilots in particular raked up impressive kill totals in Operations including Focus and Mole Cricket 19. Considering there are several CMANO scenarios that I can name off the top of my head [the majority of Fury scenarios, Don of a New Era, Spratly Spat, Yankee Team, several of the Shifting Sands DLCs etc] that involves high intensity air combat that makes it entirely possible for "pilots" to get ace-in-a-day status I'd say that this idea is hardly "unrealistic", if quite superficial as far as suggestions go.

SakiNoE

[AlphaSierra]

...

[AlphaSierra]

...

[lumiere]

Database link for Briefing/Special message

Guess in briefing there is line like "PLAAF deployed J-20 Fighter armed with PL-15 Long-range AAM".
It would be great if I could jump to Database Viewer after clicking "J-20 Fighter" and "PL-15 Long-range AAM" to quick-check the performances.

Here is my idea:
1. "Insert Database Link" button like "Insert image" or "Insert Link"
2. Select text to link, Type of Unit (Dropdown), and database number (or "Add Unit"-like window).

[serjames]

ability to filter unassigned units in the mission window using a text box filter... e.g. find all awacs for my mission. type "e-3" in the box

[LMychajluk]

In Steam, as a 'Property' of the game in the Library, there's an option to Opt-In to Beta versions. Would it be possible to publish the Beta releases to Steam and allow us to Opt-in to the Beta updates in this manner?

[vettim89]

Add ammunition as a cargo option. I realize this would be an enormous task to include all the available ammunition options. In longer scenarios a player could or would have to move ammo to bases that were running out. Also would allow a player to replace ammunition at a base where the magazines ere damaged or destroyed.

[vettim89]

I am just going to add this here to vent my frustration. Would it be possible to add an option to disable the start/stop button and hot key while in editor mode. Nothing more frustrating than being hard at work writing a new event when you hear the "aircraft taking off" audio. Having to go back and reset to scenario start after such a moment can be frustrating. Could just be a bar on the editor pull down like "Enable God Mode" is now

I cannot believe I am the only person who has done this

[Randomizer]

Having written over twenty scenarios for public consumption and many more for trials, tests and personal use I can say with a clear conscious that I have never actually done this. So am happy with the run/pause button where it is.

-C

[stilesw]

Share feelings with Randomizer. No change really needed.

-WS

[duelok11]

I would like to suggest adding escort aircraft in cargo missions just like the mechanics of having escorts in strike missions since it can be used in paratrooper missions or transporting precious materials etc.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Add ammunition as a cargo option. I realize this would be an enormous task to include all the available ammunition options. In longer scenarios a player could or would have to move ammo to bases that were running out. Also would allow a player to replace ammunition at a base where the magazines ere damaged or destroyed.

This is being worked on.

[DWReese]

Please add Smoke. It can protect units by blocking LOS and laser-guided munitions. It also can conceal a ground unit's advancement on hostile territory.

Doug

[Gunner98]

Please add Smoke. It can protect units by blocking LOS and laser-guided munitions.

When adding smoke it is good to remember that smoke is not just smoke:

-Smoke HC (hexachloroethane) blocks image optics but not IR (Infra-Red) or TI (Thermal Imagery) and Lasers can penetrate it at some degradation if the originator has IR or TI to view the target - has been around for a long time.
-Smoke WP (White Phosphorus) blocks both image and IR but 'pillars' and leaves gaps in warm to hot weather. Starts fires really well. Banned (sort of) by the Geneva convention ~2005 as an inhumane weapon along with NAPALM but can still technically be used as a smoke round
-Smoke RP (Red Phosphorus) is better and more modern than WP, more effective at spreading the smoke effect and is also useful to blind TI. In some definitions this is a multi-spectral smoke
-Multi-Spectral Smoke. Designed to defeat visual, IR, TI and in some cases radar.

Also wind and precipitation have a huge effect on smoke. On a damp, calm morning it can hang for a long time but will seek low ground so elevation has an impact. Calm dry days are perfect, gusty days or heavy rain - not so much.

Randomizer can probably add chapter & verse to this...

B

[DWReese]

Thanks Gunner

Right now, I'd just settle for something that blocks LOS. <lol>

This is really necessary for ground warfare, and for aviation targeting. I'm sure that it isn't very high on their "to-do list", but I do believe that it is very necessary.

Perhaps you and Randomizer can further champion my request. <G>

Doug

[charlee22009]

Really need a time/fuel/distance planner for aircraft for *before* they take off. Not necessarily a strike planner (although that would be great.) This way it would be so much easier to see fuel consumption and time, with certain pre-planned waypoints and speeds for aircraft. This would be for planning purposes. Before takeoff, the computer could calculate time, fuel, distance, % fuel remaining, time to bingo fuel, as well as radius-of action remaining.

This is 100% realistic, whether it’s modern-era (done with the flight management system or FMS or similar computers) or reaching back into the 50s and 60s with manual flight planning.

[Randomizer]

Wish that I had a dollar for every smoke fire mission (using deliberate or quick procedures) that did not work as intended...

I would argue that before you can add smoke to the simulation you absolutely require the modelling of wind direction and velocity. There are a great many instances where laying smoke will be either ineffective, counter-productive or both. Adding a more representative local weather model BEFORE adding smoke to ground combat seems far more reasonable than slapping a one-size-fits-all model where wind direction and velocity are irrelevant.

Smoke in modern naval combat as intended for CMANO is, in almost every instance, completely useless in my opinion.

-C

[DWReese]

Really? Wow!

I trained with our SWAT team (one of the finest in the nation) and we utilized smoke quite often. Primarily, it concealed our advances when attempting to cross an open area to get to our designated target location. Without smoke, it was essentially a "killing field." Granted, this was in a very defined area.

I have thought about smoke in CMANO being utilized in two distinct situations. (I'm sure that there are more.)

First, from what I have been told, the smoke could degrade/diminish the laser capability for attacks. Is this not the case? I know that if I try to aim the laser-guided sights from my handgun it will not penetrate the smoke. So, I have no idea where I should be aiming. Granted, it may be only temporary, but it is certainly an effective way to lessen the attacker's kill percentage as they would effectively shooting blind. (Obviously, I'm talking about real life.) Now, if planes are different because they fly above that, or they aren't actually affected by that, I wouldn't know.)

Second, and this is because I have been using some of CMANO's cargo/land attack scenarios (such as Gunner98's H-Hour), if an attacking force approaches from a distance without the use of smoke, they can easily be picked off by the defender. If smoke were present, I assume that they would be able to get much closer (like with the SWAT example above) before the enemy could actually start seeing.

From what I have seen in the footage of the Normandy Invasion, it certainly looks like smoke could have helped there. Perhaps they had it and it got whisked away, which probably actually proves your point. But, if smoke could have been available and could have been used, then it certainly looks like we would have had a lot less soldiers killed trying to make it to the beachheads.

Finally, I'm not trying to argue about the actual effects of smoke. I'm certainly no expert. I gather that you are. But, I can say that we have used smoke often in real life, and it provided great concealment for our advance. Without it, we would have had a lot of dead cops.

Doug

[Randomizer]

If you cannot understand that there is a world of difference between smoking off a room, a building or even part of a street with smoke grenades (delivered by hand, rifle, launcher or generators) and trying to smoke off part of a thousand acre plus battlefield with artillery and or mortars then there is certainly nothing more that can be said. There are several orders of magnitude of difficulty between screening a single vehicle using its integral smoke grenade launchers and screening a company in action.

I would argue that the former scale is much too small for CMANO and the latter absolutely requires a more detailed weather model than now exists.

-C

[DWReese]

If you cannot understand that there is a world of difference between smoking off a room, a building or even part of a street with smoke grenades (delivered by hand, rifle, launcher or generators) and trying to smoke off part of a thousand acre plus battlefield with artillery and or mortars then there is certainly nothing more that can be said.

Wow! Who said that I couldn't understand the difference? In fact, if you actually read what I previously wrote, you would see that I even mentioned the differences.

Smoke (at least on a small scale) is a very valuable tool that could help units advance on enemy-held positions. I've actually deployed it many times in REAL LIFE. I'm not just talking about it. And, as I said, smoke can blind laser sighting, which I know is equally important.

As I said, I have not used it on a large-scale battlefield such as what you are describing but, then again, I never actually described using it on a "large-scale battlefield" situation. I merely stated that I would like to have smoke be an option, even if it could be used on a small scale only.

Doug