RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[chrisol]

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

I see those as different items, though possibly related. "Do not cavitate" is great for a sub or ship trying not to be detected, but doesn't address staying on-station with a convoy.

Sure - didn't mean they covered the same ground... just looked through the list and was about to click on sprint/drift when I thought that having the option of automatically having subs not cavitating was an even better idea. Happy to see both though !

bw
Chris

[DROregon]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Amono

Sprint and drift ASW patrol mission behavior for subs(also subs in ASUW patrol) and surf ships.

Added.

Ah, I don't think Sprint & Drift has been added. Or, did I miss something?
Do you mean to say that editing plotted waypoints to change speeds & depths is our Sprint & Drift feature?
Yes, it will do for now, but I would like to see a better solution in the future.

Thanks for continuing to enhance CMANO.

[Figeac]

Removed these two, as they have been implemented:
* AI aircraft should obey their loadout's flight profile

Are you sure this is already implemented for every loadout profile or every mission type? Maybe I'm wrong, but so far I have only seen aircrafts on strike missions with the new planner obeying their profiles, not in any other type of mission or just on plotted course.

[mikmykWS]

No bumping in this thread Figeac[:)]

This is still a work in progress and we'll get there. Please be patient.

Thanks!

Mike

[Figeac]

Ooops sorry, just wanted to know if I was missing something

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: DROregon

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Amono

Sprint and drift ASW patrol mission behavior for subs(also subs in ASUW patrol) and surf ships.

Added.

Ah, I don't think Sprint & Drift has been added. Or, did I miss something?
Do you mean to say that editing plotted waypoints to change speeds & depths is our Sprint & Drift feature?
Yes, it will do for now, but I would like to see a better solution in the future.

Thanks for continuing to enhance CMANO.

I meant that it has been added to the poll.

[Dimitris]

Removed "Sprint and drift behavior' as it has been implemented in Build 526. If you voted for this you can vote again.

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Removed "Sprint and drift behavior' as it has been implemented in Build 526. If you voted for this you can vote again.

Where's the like button?????

[hb921]

Do I understand correctly that 'Sprint and drift behavior' is implementet for mission? What about 'Sprint and drift behavior' for given position in group?

[Dimitris]

The reverse is correct; we initially implemented it for group members as this is the most common use case.

[hb921]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

The reverse is correct; we initially implemented it for group members as this is the most common use case.

Great news - I will wait for release of Build 526 or higher. In mean time I will cast my vote for other feature.

[PaulWRoberts]

I feel that something like Sprint-Drift, which would add important real-world behavior the the modeling of ASW operations, is far more important than various graphics and presentation improvements on the list. I'm a little surprised it's not in the game already.

[mikmykWS]

Sprint and drift is currently being tested in beta[:)]

[PaulWRoberts]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Sprint and drift is currently being tested in beta[:)]

Hooray! And thanks.

[Jdegani]

Absolutely loving the game. Never played Harpoon but did play Jane's Fleet Command way back when and was looking for something newer and better. This is way awesome. Definitely takes awhile to learn but I'm really enjoying it.

A TOT planner would probably get my vote but it sounds like that's already in the works and has the most votes anyway. I was wondering if it might be possible to enable the "disengage" command for entire groups. Sometimes I'll want a group of fighters to all drop their weapon assignments and redirect them for something else. For example, an enemy group I was trying to pounce on just fired off a bunch of missiles and I want to turn and outrun them before re-engaging. Is there a different way that we should be ordering that or do you think it would be useful to disengage all the members of a group with one command?

Thanks!

[kimaera026]

I have two.

1 - Sort of an enhancement of the 1/3 rule option. Somewhat similar to what already proposed. I too like the "specify amount of airborne units in a 1/3 ruled mission". I'd like a "autogroup" option, so your specified amount of airborne units is always grouped. I find it a chore to always re-group them manually, and it would be useful to have, especially for the AI, so the enemy would do that too and it would feel like being against formations of enemy aircraft and point+wingmen patrols. In reality, fighters rarely operate individually. They often have a wingmen.

2 - Flight operations. Maybe it's being expanded already. That said, I'd like it more customisable, from what I'm seeing in 536. At the moment it's all automatic. Planes are assigned to either parking, hangar, pads, or flight deck, according to some mechanic i'm yet to understand. It'd be better if, in auto, it would assign the ones with a ready loadout to open parking and flight deck, rathen than hangar, which would suit reserve, maintanance, and generally inactive or readying aircraft. And i'd like the option to direct them myself. Say i'm readying a flight of two aicraft for a strike. I want them on the flight deck when their loadout is ready, so I can launch them straight away. Maybe it's already working like this, or maybe not. Or maybe the difference from hangar and flight deck is so small still that it doesnt make a difference. I don't know for sure.

[Pergite!]

I have a suggestion to add more (cosmetic) posture markings that can be used when manually classifying targets. Today it's not possible to distinguish different sides with the symbols available unless you make them either neutral or hostile. It's currently not possible to manually mark anyone as unfriendly. In modern C2 software the option exist to colour code different side within a what this game calls a posture.
Take a complex 90s Balkan scenario, or modern Syria for example. All combatants would in the Command GUI be either unfriendly (orange) or neutral (green). But why not implement the possibility for the player to manually mark each side with a colour to distinguish them from each other.
In game logic terms it would in this case be a good idea to have two subcategories to tell if the side is unfriendly or neutral to determine how contacts are handled and prosecuted by the simulation. Some of one sides platforms could require closer attention than others which would enable the player to decide if he want his AI to shadow one sides Sigint aircraft, but ignore his auxillery ships.

To clarify what I am talking about:

Side 1
Purple (Neutral)
Purple (Unfriendly)

Side 2
Magenta (Neutral)
Magenta (Unfriendly)

Side 3
...etc

These markings are only meant to create better situational awareness for the player and should no alter anything of how Command currently handles postures.

[KewDok]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

other than TOT planner (which I think still has my vote?) something I thought of this morning:

request the ability to fine tune the 1/3rd rule. Add a custom option. aka i want 1 or 4 regardless of how many I assigned.

This would work in following examples:

Support mission with 6 E-3 AWACS assigned but I specify I only want ONE airborne.
Patrol missoin with 9 F-15Cs assigned but I specify that I want 4 airborne at all times.

I support the TOT planner as primary priority right now as well.

I would also love to see this feature mentioned here refined, however.
I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage. The new flights should arrive, and then the RTB can happen.
It is a another factor in the fuel calculations, but I hope it is doable. This is particularly important for AEW missions, as I want complete coverage, all the time.

[Pukeko]

I would like the rule to be "on station". Currently new flights on patrol missions only go up when the old ones are on the way back, which leaves a gap in coverage.

Second this. As when you start a scenario you assign a lot of planes to a mission all at once. So they all go bingo fuel at the same time.

[KewDok]

ORIGINAL: Pukeko

As when you start a scenario you assign a lot of planes to a mission all at once. So they all go bingo fuel at the same time.

If you use 1/3 rule this will not happen. Units will be in "reserve" and replace units on RTB or dead. But 1/3 rule will leave gaps, as I mentioned in my post.