Akula's Wishlist

[Akula]

1. Aircraft issued a manual 'land aircraft' order should default to their home/launching base. Player can manually select a closer base if desired.
   
2. Ability in the course editor to toggle the AI Task Force 'chase' ability on or off, so that the player can determine if the AI has the autonomy to engage targets of opportunity or remain on its assigned course.
   
3. Search option for SE that allows you to search for units/bases by country when creating/editing groups or bases.
   
4. Upon completing and intercept/runnin out of ammo (missiles), a pup-up that asks if you wish an air group to RTB or loiter/continue attack.
   
5. Ability to toggle control of AAW engagements to either automatic or manual, per group. IE I can choose to control the SAM launches so that my SAG Longshooters don't waste all their SAMs firing at a single helo, yet I might leave all my base defenses on automatic.
   
6. PE options to build new DB by using only parts of existing ones, IE use the weapons annex but nothing else from the current DB. (see below for more detail).
   
7. Waypoint system for launching patrols that allows me to set the course I want a patrolling aircraft to take, rather than it just simply flying to 1 point on the map.
   
8. The ability to set orders that can be taken out at a specific gametime by the AI staff. EI I set a strike package to ready for anti-runway and launch to attack a base at 0800 Day 2 game time, then the AI would take care of that for me.
   
9. Editable/scriptable weather.
   
10. Being able to control damage and ammo levels in the SE. (See below)
    
11. Ability to strafe soft targets with modern aircraft guns, and AI checks to support it. LOW PRIORITY.
    

[TonyE]

1. The ability to set orders that can be taken out at a specific gametime by the AI staff. EI I set a strike package to ready for anti-runway and launch to attack a base at 0800 Day 2 game time, then the AI would take care of that for me.
   

 

Nice one, that's one of the goals of the H3/TNH development, be a commander not a mouse clicker avoiding AAMs, launching Chaff, etc.

[Akula]

Thought of a new one...

 

Weather that is scripted/edited in the SE.

 

So if I want there to be a major storm over Taiwan, I can make sure its there (for example).

[pmaidhof]

Weather that is scripted/edited in the SE.

 

As perhaps an addendum to that, scripted Weather Effects - could the effects be tweaked to represent an electro-magnetic pulse attack or "zone" on/over a particular area rendering equipment, primarily radar in HC from functioning? So Akula's scripted major storm over Taiwan could in fact be an EMP detonation preceding the inevitable PRC attack.

[Akula]

Weather that is scripted/edited in the SE.

 

As perhaps an addendum to that, scripted Weather Effects - could the effects be tweaked to represent an electro-magnetic pulse attack or "zone" on/over a particular area rendering equipment, primarily radar in HC from functioning? So Akula's scripted major storm over Taiwan could in fact be an EMP detonation preceding the inevitable PRC attack.

 

Personally I was just thinking thunder and lightning, but no reason it could't include something else.

[Akula]

Let me go into more detail on the PE option.

 

What I would like to see is the ability to use certain tables from the current DB (such as installations or weapons), but blank others like ships or aircraft. This would give DB designers the same basic format to work from, but not require changing every single entry.

 

With the utility I would like to see, we could copy over the weapons/mounts sections from the official DB, and then only need to build up his other annexes. While this is currently possible by simply editing the existing entries, it is a 'messy' ordeal. Starting with a blank annex would be preferable simply for organization, plus the fact I may not need 2000 bases in the DB I am creating. I think this would be a usefull tool considering the current limitations on the DB in size (even if we have managed to break free of that), and the fact that with the BB, if I create a Falklands BS for instance, I don't need to have every unit from every country from 1950 onwards available, I really only need the OOB for Argentina and UK in 1981.

 

Basically would could build a BS with an appropriate DB and not have it cluttered with 4-5 copies of the same ships for different eras.

[Akula]

I'd like to see a pop-up box option for intercepting aircraft that gives you the option to return them to base when they have completed their intercept or expended their missiles.

 

Another option would be to have the 'land aircraft' option set their home base (base they launched from) as the default selection.

 

When you are dealing with lots of AC and multiple bases, it can get confusing as to where each plane came from.

[Akula]

I was thinking (and yes I got a headache from it...lol). From a scenario designers point of view, it would be extremely usefull to be able to set certain units to have damage or low ammo levels in the SE durign the design stage. This would open up a world of possibilities for designers.

 

Keeping it simple, when you add a unit, have are given the option to edit its status. Things that you could forseeably edit would be the following:

 

Overall damage

Fires

Critical Damage (rudder bridge etc) from a drop down menu

Ammunition levels (done as a percentage)

 

 

Anyway, would like input from others on this. Just something I know I'd have liked this morning in trying to make a mission for the USCG in a scenario...the burning frieghter would have been a nice one.

[noxious]

I was thinking (and yes I got a headache from it...lol). From a scenario designers point of view, it would be extremely usefull to be able to set certain units to have damage or low ammo levels in the SE durign the design stage. This would open up a world of possibilities for designers.

 

Keeping it simple, when you add a unit, have are given the option to edit its status. Things that you could forseeably edit would be the following:

 

Overall damage

Fires

Critical Damage (rudder bridge etc) from a drop down menu

Ammunition levels (done as a percentage)

 

 

Anyway, would like input from others on this. Just something I know I'd have liked this morning in trying to make a mission for the USCG in a scenario...the burning frieghter would have been a nice one.

 

Better than that, you can strike two birds with one stone : by allowing us to have "modified" instances of platforms and anything else from a DB, you have both this feature and the smaller DB all in one.

Let me explain : instead of making a complete new DB for your battleset or scenario, you just basically add a particular instance of a platform, etc into the scenario.

So that allows, for example, to have a special Typhoon to emulate Red October just in that scenario, or damaged ships, etc.

This should work with a revamp of the DB scheme, where HCDB is just the common database : when you load a scenario, it first looks for instances or custom platform classes in the scenario itself, then in the battleset addendum/embedded DB, and finally, in the HCDB/common DB.

That would probably work easier with a revamp of the whole ID scheme ( I mean scrapping the old one once the new one works) which wouldn't be based on sequential IDs for game engine use, but hash based keys, that would use the record itself to calculate the hash key. Standard key conflict resolution would be used for duplicates, but that's an implementation detail (hashmap).

If needed I can expound on this in another writeup (Yes, my writeups will be coming soonish, I'm a bit of an obsessive perfectionist, hehehe, or I totally improvise like for this write up)

 

Sorry for intruding like that Akula

 

But yeah, a new DB scheme that would allow instancing of platforms and custom platforms in scenarios/battlesets without having to embed a full DB would be nice.

[TonyE]

Wishes 1-8 noted for the big redesign.

[Akula]

I was thinking (and yes I got a headache from it...lol). From a scenario designers point of view, it would be extremely usefull to be able to set certain units to have damage or low ammo levels in the SE durign the design stage. This would open up a world of possibilities for designers.

 

Keeping it simple, when you add a unit, have are given the option to edit its status. Things that you could forseeably edit would be the following:

 

Overall damage

Fires

Critical Damage (rudder bridge etc) from a drop down menu

Ammunition levels (done as a percentage)

 

 

Anyway, would like input from others on this. Just something I know I'd have liked this morning in trying to make a mission for the USCG in a scenario...the burning frieghter would have been a nice one.

 

Better than that, you can strike two birds with one stone : by allowing us to have "modified" instances of platforms and anything else from a DB, you have both this feature and the smaller DB all in one.

Let me explain : instead of making a complete new DB for your battleset or scenario, you just basically add a particular instance of a platform, etc into the scenario.

So that allows, for example, to have a special Typhoon to emulate Red October just in that scenario, or damaged ships, etc.

This should work with a revamp of the DB scheme, where HCDB is just the common database : when you load a scenario, it first looks for instances or custom platform classes in the scenario itself, then in the battleset addendum/embedded DB, and finally, in the HCDB/common DB.

That would probably work easier with a revamp of the whole ID scheme ( I mean scrapping the old one once the new one works) which wouldn't be based on sequential IDs for game engine use, but hash based keys, that would use the record itself to calculate the hash key. Standard key conflict resolution would be used for duplicates, but that's an implementation detail (hashmap).

If needed I can expound on this in another writeup (Yes, my writeups will be coming soonish, I'm a bit of an obsessive perfectionist, hehehe, or I totally improvise like for this write up)

 

Sorry for intruding like that Akula

 

But yeah, a new DB scheme that would allow instancing of platforms and custom platforms in scenarios/battlesets without having to embed a full DB would be nice.

 

Well you do have the knowledge of how to go about doing it, I just have the wild and crazy ideas that create more work for the team. These wishlists are open to comment AFAIK, so don't feel as if you are hijacking the thread by commenting on my ideas.

[Akula]

This one is going to #1 on my list.

 

We need the ability in the SE to make sure a TF stays on its course when necessary. Example, SAG ZZS is supposed to be covering an amphibious operations but the AI has decided that it is better used chasing a single PT boat 1200 miles off its course. That is highly annoying, and not only that it has a tendacy to leave the AI trying to 'sail across land' and running aground.

 

Solution:

 

A Checkbox in the course editor that toggles this ability on or off. Should be off by default.

 

__ TF may devate from assigned course

 

if that is checked, the TF is free to chase, if not it stays on course no matter what.

[Herman]

Solution:

 

A Checkbox in the course editor that toggles this ability on or off. Should be off by default.

 

__ TF may devate from assigned course

 

if that is checked, the TF is free to chase, if not it stays on course no matter what.

If this idea gets implemented, I'd recommend reversing the suggested default.

 

Currently, the game allows units to chase. If that is the current default, then it should remain so. If this is a new feature, then it should be enabled only when the box is selected. In this way, older scens would work as they were previously tested with the 'chase' behaviour as the default.

[Akula]

I think I would really like aircraft issued a manual 'land' order to default to their home/launching base. The player can always choose a closer base manually.

 

Added as #1 to the list.

[Akula]

Just an update to mark #1 off my list. Yay!