I couldn’t figure out why the air ops window wasn’t showing in the tutorials where you control NAS Fallon. Turns out I clicked the wrong Fallon icon. I am not a smart man and would need a whole lot more then a hand
When you select an airbase (any base really) there is a button on its status panel going like “Aircraft: XX / YY”. This quickly shows you how many planes are in that base, and how many of them are ready for ops.
BTW I really recommend the new airstrike tutorials that come with the v1.14 update (and the new sub tutorials too).
For new players or those interested in a play-through, we’ve also got some really nice ‘after action reports’ in our #screens-aars sub-forum as well. A couple of great ones:
I will check them out @Dimitris thank you . The one thing I bounce off of in CMANO is air mission planning. I just want to micro manage everything and could really use some help with it.
Have a look at one of the Discord channels: https://discordapp.com/channels/268118859448320000/268118859448320000
There is usually at least a few guys at any given time able to help in real time.
I have some questions to @Dimitris if you do not mind:
I have been fooling around with setting up enemy ships to radiate only with a radar that is common across multiple classes (for example Head Net C which is installed on Kara, Kashin, Kynda and Krivak:
Despite the contact report listing all possible classes, the unit tag on the map correctly shows which contact is a CG, DDG or FFG, therefore allowing classification. Is there something I am missing?
I noticed that subs like the Echo II can launch their missiles while being submerged. Is the requirement for certain subs to surface to launch their missiles not simulated?
Some Soviet units have a missile tracking radar (for example Echo II for SS-N-3 or Kiev for SS-N-12). Does this serve any purpose in CMANO?
What probably happens in this case is that, because there is a limited number of ships, the “ELINT crew” is able to make an estimation and type-level classification relatively quickly. The speed at which the ID status is increased (from “there is something out there” all the way to “it’s this precise ship”) depends on a number of factors, such as how long you have been tracking the target, the TMA quality, the crew proficiency and how many different platforms are out there (the more, the trickier it gets).
The P-6/SS-N-3A system as used on the PLARK-675/Echo II class actually had two distinctive peculiarities:
a) The sub had to surface in order to fire the missiles, and remain on the surface for 20 mins prior to firing in order to align the missile gyros
b) The sub had to deploy a missile-tracking radar (Trap Door IIRC) and missile-guidance datalink in order to provide mid-course guidance to the missile (and still remain on the surface while doing so). While an orbiting Tu-95RT could take over the datalink part, the missile-tracking still had to be performed by the launch platform, all the way to the seeker activation point. This, combined with the fact that the missile tracking depended on having line of sight to the missile(s), severely reduced the practical engagement range.
Explicitly modelling these intricacies in-code has long been on our dev stack, but always something else has had greater priority at any given time
You can, however, probably model these limitations through Lua. (e.g. “if guiding missiles > 0, max depth = 0”, “if datalink_device_status=off then missile_goes_autonomous” etc.).
Lua is a great way of including such peculiarities without saddling the core simulation with every special case
I think this is the relevant thread.
I’d love to buy this (even considering is at an all time low) but I’m really not sure what to expect, control wise.
I’m not an expert in Naval Warfare- so would I have all the instruments in my hand to employ my resources correctly?
Or in other words… do any of you have a video AAR that shows me exactly how the gameplay is?
I mean, I have a generic idea (more or less an updated version of Harpoon) but I either find stuff that’s greatly sped up for effect or … well nothing.
Sorry for the bother,
For the record, I think that describing CMANO as “an updated Harpoon” is similar to declaring every modern FPS as “Quake with better graphics & sound”: It’s technically correct, but essentially unfair to all the hard work behind it and the new & unique features it brings to the table
Our experience with players new to Command is that they fall very broadly into two camps: Those that are coming from other air/naval sims and are thus already familiar with the subject matter, and those that are coming completely “cold” (or their background is primarily in arcade/MMOBA-oriented titles like WoWarships etc.). The former group only has to get familiar with the UI to be up and running, while in the latter case there is also the challenge of coming to grips with the intricacies of modern warfare.
(WW2 experience helps, but cannot be exclusively relied upon. A no-kidding defence analyst explains this nicely here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4437612 and here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4438510 )
The “steep learning curve” argument that you will sometimes see in reference to CMANO, in most cases translates to “I am unfamiliar with how modern combat works” rather than “I’m up-to-speed on modern stuff but the UI / mechanics are puzzling me”.
With regards to the UI, have a look at Baloogan’s UI tutorials: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgRuKky0mojZkb5tSIpJgEy0WR4rzt6tA
Let us know how we can further help you get to grips with it. Thanks!
I pleasepleaseplease hope you understand it wasn’t at all my intention to show a lack of respect or anything!
I can tell that CMANO does MUCH more and MUCH better than Harpoon series could ever hope to do- mostly because both computational power and space on HDDs has increased significantly over the years.
And from the many AAR here on MUDSPIKE alone I can just begin to imagine all the effort put by developers into it! I am always left with a smile on my face be reading all the tiny facets this game offer.
The explanation you gave to Mbot about the abstraction level of Runways is perfect.
So, again, please, I wasn’t at all trying to diminish the job you guys did.
I’m jumping on those link you provided ASAP and I will report back!
Thank you again, so much, for your patience!
Komemiute, this (game? toybox? piece of software) is actually a fairly good learning tool about modern warfare stuff. It comes with a ton of pretty darn good tutorials that teach you how to do stuff and get yourself killed in a hundred of various ways. Fun!
Like some of the DCS modules for a guy like me most of its fun is in learning. I have little hope to ever get good enough at either to be truly tactical in em. YMMV.
You should just get it. There’s so much in there!
Hit the nail on the head- There’s such a vast array of things to learn, try, master and play with in CMANO across so many theatres and eras. Truly an exercise in the joy of eating a slice of humble pie and learning something you haven’t seen before!
Messing around the editor for lack of better things to do. I’ve finally discovered the secret to cracking the CHICOMM fleet’s wall of Grumble/Grizzly/Crotale.
It’s HARMs. lots, and lots of HARMs.
I have been playing around with the other side recently, cracking US carrier battle groups with Backfire mass attacks. But even pre-AEGIS/NTU, ships usually start to take hits only once their SAM magazines have been emptied. The problem is that missiles (from AI missions) mostly arrive in small salvos piecemeal, never truly overwhelming the defenses.
A TOT functionality for Command would be highly appreciated, especially for the AI side. The Soviets apparently trained for multi-regiment missile salvos within a time slot of one minute for best results and no more than two minutes for satisfactory ones. If the timing became wider in an exercise, the entire main attack was considered unsuccessful.
Here is a new mini-DLC that looks interesting. Any scenario with F-35s is eye-opening and the British Type 45 Destroyers just look cool.
I also noticed this on my Steam store page:
Yeah, I’d say that’s relevant. It seems like it should be more though. My favorite way to play is to leave it running at real time in the background while I do other things, then come storming back to the computer when I hear an audio alert. It is like my own little CAOC here sometimes.
…and just how many HARM do we have in the US inventory (USAF and USN)?
…and how do we think the PRC will react when weapons hit Chinese sovereign soil?
I realize its a game…let’s just say that they were things I used to ponder.
I was trolling through the CMANO forums a while back when their Robo-War-2021 scenario came out. There was a spirited discussion of just how, exactly to deal with aggression against Taiwan and in the SCS in the face of a rapidly progressing military capabilities and the A2AD strategy.
The most ruthlessly novel Idea I heard was draw a box around Shanghai, and pick every target of military, economic, or civil importance. Day one, hour one of the war, every ship in range empties their Tomahawks into that box. I don’t particularly care how many SA-10s or PL-12s you have, without significant forewarning no air defense network in the world is going to be able to stop a ToT of a couple thousand tomahawks.
The poster’s point was the social contract in the PLC is the people give up rather sizeable social liberties in exchange for stability, economic growth, and security. Instead of hacking away at the military, take the mot prominent example of those successes and burn it to the ground on national TV. Then you sit back, pop a Miller and hope that the Chinese domestic firestorm brewed up.
I don’t entirely agree with the prediction, but it was an interesting bit of off the wall thinking.
An interesting concept. I certainly employs elements of PMESII (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, and Infrastructure) and DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military and Information).
I all seriousness, it is not far from strategies and concepts I studied at the Naval War College.
I was the author of what a professor termed the “Drive By Strategy” for the invasion of Iraq. Start from the south (as we did) head north and don’t stop moving until you reach Turkey. Take a left and head home. No occupation mess that dragged on for years. The seminar concluded it was unsound…go figure.
The fact is that, as this Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) paper discusses, the US military is more and more being called upon to work in unfamiliar areas of PMESII and DIME…but more a “fix what you broke and make people like you” focus, rather than destroy their economic base and hope they decide to take it to out on their government.