The "Uber" Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops Thread

[RyanE]

If its wire-guided, as most modern torpedoes are, just click on it and set the waypoint and speed/depth.  You can do a dogleg that way also.  You can do that stuff as long as the wired connection is maintained.  The sub has certain restrictions around its speed and movement while guiding.

You get a more official answer asking on the Matrix forums.

[Dimitris]

Command: The Silent Service is out!

[Pete Dero]

[Yooper]

We're putting together a CMANO Wiki over at http://weaponsrelease.com. If you're getting into CMANO hopefully it's helpful. If you're already well versed then pitch in and get a chance at some participation prizes including a model kit and a "Jane's Fighting Something" book.

This is another resource that's hopefully more easily browsable and digestable than scrambling around Google.

[Airborne Rifles]

Hey all, Bart Gauvin (Gunner98) and myself are excited to announce our CMANO-inspired novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour. Head over to the Books and Reading part of the forum to get the details: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=22247.msg611293;topicseen#new

[Dimitris]

Command-LIVE: Commonwealth Collision has been released: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/731/details/Command.Live.Commonwealth.Collision

TL;DR : Combined UK + India carrier group (incl. QE & F-35Bs) vs combined Pakistan + China naval and coastal forces.

[OJsDad]

I'm thinking about giving this another try.  Are the Baloogan tutorial videos still the best, or are there some newer ones that would be better to use. 

[Pete Dero]

I'm thinking about giving this another try.  Are the Baloogan tutorial videos still the best, or are there some newer ones that would be better to use.

His latest video is 3 years old and the game evolved in that time.  There are new tutorials in the game so you could start with them.
Kushan's channel could be a good source for information : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUNJdTKkZtkZIY5z7P2T8lg/playlists


Some recent user made tutorials (in game) :

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4443355 (tutorials covering Air-to-Air Warfare (both modern and historical combat), Cargo Operations, ASW Operations and Mining (mine-sweeping and mine-laying - post 33)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4350541  (campaign file - post 26)

[RyanE]

Beta update with some cool changes and a bunch of fixes.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4514036

[Jarhead0331]

Personally, I'm most excited about the addition of Gurkhas to the database! 

[RyanE]

I really wish they wouldn't waste a lot of time putting in small land units that have almost no differentiation in the game.  If all development was  complete, fire away.  But they are still working on a lot of stuff and it seems like half the tech issues they get are about land units and supporting them.

[Jarhead0331]

I really wish they wouldn't waste a lot of time putting in small land units that have almost no differentiation in the game.  If all development was  complete, fire away.  But they are still working on a lot of stuff and it seems like half the tech issues they get are about land units and supporting them.

I highly doubt adding something like Gurkha infantry units to the DB is a tremendous waste of time. Sure, it doesn't add much to the sim other than flavor and diversity, but it is probably fairly simple to include in the DB.

[RyanE]

Yeah, the Gurkhas don't add much time by themselves.  But take a look at the requests to add things like FN-FAL equipped infantry vs M-16 and what not.  There is a ton of work in adding all those units and testing them.

Now someone will want Gurkhas with No. 4 vs L1 vs L85, with L4 MG vs GPMG, with different sniping rifles, etc..  It has happened and is happening.  No game differentiation, but someone has to put them all in because of some immersion claim. 

That's not even getting into complaints about land unit movement debates around terrain.

[Jarhead0331]

Yeah, the Gurkhas don't add much time by themselves.  But take a look at the requests to add things like FN-FAL equipped infantry vs M-16 and what not.  There is a ton of work in adding all those units and testing them.

Now someone will want Gurkhas with No. 4 vs L1 vs L85, with L4 MG vs GPMG, with different sniping rifles, etc..  It has happened and is happening.  No game differentiation, but someone has to put them all in because of some immersion claim. 

That's not even getting into complaints about land unit movement debates around terrain.

I agree, for a game of this scale, modeling nuance in small arms, may be unnecessary. Leave stuff like that to modders. 

[Con]

I have a wish that there was a way to generate a immersive AAR from the message log.  I was looking to see if anyone had written a generator that could parse the message log and assign more prosaic AAR to the outcome.

I would like to know which of my pilots shot down the most planes - what ordnance did they use to achieve this (missiles/guns etc).  It would be great if a narrative could be established that showed the pilot fired 3 missiles at a target 1 was spoofed by Chaff, 1 missed completely (blew the hit percentage roll) 1 almost hit (very close to the percentage roll) and then the pilot closed with guns and shot the enemy out of the sky with his last burst.

A reverse case could be made to see how many times your pilot successfully evaded.  This could of course be extended to ships, enemies etc.  I lose sight of the emotional nail biting aspect of CMANO at the end of a scenario when it just tallies up expenditures and losses for both sides.  In complex battles too much is happening to see the drama that is unfolding and I would like to be able to capture that somehow.

My wish would be to have a narrative driven AAR outcome generated by the game - it seems the info is there(planes/squadrons/pilots (call signs assigned to them/plane type as a mission, ordnance fired and at whom/results etc) but is it possible? 

Con