Ripcord

I rarely post anything here, but it seems like I post this every month or two -- DCS needs to create some kind of SDK that allows third party groups to create and populate theatres. Most of us are going to be dead and gone by the time we see anything like this come from ED itself.

Very cool idea. I like it. BTW, DCS should go ahead and remove the FFG from the US forces, since the last one has been decommissioned now. Instead it should be repainted and renamed to some foreign Navy fleets like Poland Turkey and maybe a couple others (Greece doesn't operate any right now, but whatever -- that could change, the US has a good dozen of them ready for foreign sale). Easy to mod, I would guess, but I'm not a big fan of mods -- better to have a good standard fleet of ships, and various units in game, available for everybody.

Well, having levels of command and control is an intriguing idea. Not sure how that might be implemented within the game engine. I would agree that CA is currently designed for 1 player as Tactical Commander, that is one on each side, as you say. But CA can still accommodate others if they want to operate 'on the ground' as specific units. But there needs to be clear delineation as to who does what -- no different than it would be for pilot roles. Mobile SAM shooters and JTAC/recon units are still very fun roles to play, and one guy can really impact a battle in those roles -- particularly if he is able to coordinate well with the TC. What you really need to have is likeminded people, I suppose. People fighting on the same side have to understand the mission, and understand that there are limited resources, in terms of coalition forces, and that victory can be achieved only by deploying and supporting those resources wisely. Sending all your AI units headfirst into enemy defenses is stupid, yet Rabb tells us that this is such a problem that server admins have to manage this. How sad is that?

Ah OK I see what the issue is here. Really I think what you need is a decent level-headed guy in that role as TC, probably no way around it. I don't think you can have country specific Tactical Commanders. Somebody can correct me, but I am pretty sure they are able to control the full contingent of RED/BLUE coalition forces regardless.

What do you mean by this? In terms of ground attack, or in terms of moving troops to/from battlefield objectives? So here when you refer to a CA player, this is a guy operating as a tactile commander, moving the 'chess pieces' around the board -- is that correct? Did these guys also jump into ground units from time to time? Or did you have others that played those roles? In your opinion, what was an optimal amount of CA players, in what roles? This is the way I would prefer it. Provide the tools and leave it up to the players to figure out the best tactical strategy to get it done. But that said, I like the missions where it would be really hard to win without having some success on the ground, and vice versa. Interesting comments. One of these days I will have to play MP and see for myself how all this works.

BTW, since we are digging up old news, I want to tell you that I did just what you suggested. MOOSE is the way to go for building missions, particularly for campaigns. Random placement, within certain parameters and random waypoints, also within certain parameters/areas, and really robust use of unit templates -- very easy to quickly put together great missions and reuse them in other parts of the map. One of these days I will revisit this, but I can tell you that I am a big believer in MOOSE for managing the majority of AI ground units.

I agree that is a totally different group of players there, talking about FPS players. Not a bad thing, just a different gaming experience. To me the problem is the level of detail that you would need to model the universe in order to really make FPS look halfway decent. Right now we cannot even figure out trees, to say nothing of the inside of buildings, moving up and downstairs, etc. So it would be such a long, long way to go. There are so many things that CA could do well, with only just a little love and TLC. Let's go get the low-hanging fruit first, and implement those improvements and go from there!

That's fair. To me the whole thing should revolve around the situation on the ground. The air war is fought to win the ground war ultimately. So it is a bit hard to imagine a credible mission scenario that doesn't involve ground units. Probably most missions are built around AI ground units, I think that is fair to say. But is it that hard to sprinkle in some CA player-controlled ground units at key points on the battlefield? The thing about this, from a mission builder perspective, is you can add in the player controlled units on the battlefield and place them, but you really never know if those units are ever going to be activated, eg. used by a human player. So you can allow for that, but you cannot count on it. This means you cannot use THAT unit as a trigger, or build a scenario that revolves around THAT unit getting to a certain zone, etc. IIRC even scoring is different for MP than it is for SP. So you have to create the mission so that your human CA players can impact the outcome, but the mission still functions without their participation.

Interesting statement. Give us a couple examples of ways to better include CA (which are not currently offered by creators of missions/campaigns).

Pretty sure Sukhoi still designs and manufactures aircraft, amigo. I've been to their main office in Moscow myself, and we all know where their factories are located.

I think your version and their version, as shown in the manual, is the same thing, if you look at the end points of the red lines.

Good point. I agree, would be nice to have.

I want an SDK for third party devs to make new maps/terrains. Then this whole thing will really get going in the right direction. Until then, we're just hanging around participating in goofy polls like this one, and griping about stuff that never gets fixed. So while I'm here, I will vote F-16.

No right answer here, is there? The OP is spot on. And yet Sith is correct as well. I can tell you this -- I would like to 'develop' for DCS as a content creator but I need a stable platform. So I play with it from time to time, until I realize that I cannot do the things that I really want to do, or until what I created gets broken by the next iteration of DCS. Now some will say 'oh who the hell are you' to think that I have something of value to offer - and to that I will say, maybe I don't, but if there are 99 others out there just like me, then pretty soon the talented ones will begin to emerge, and ED and the whole community benefits. It is a bit frustrating when you look at what we have and imagine what it could be. Just not sure it has to be that way. I found MOOSE to be very interesting, in what it can do now and what it can potentially do. I still think its time is coming yet. I hope we'll see more of this in the future. Anyway..... I suppose opinions are like 'you know what' (everybody has one).

Sven, step away, take a break. Get in a good place, find some balance, get your RL under control. Nobody benefits here without a healthy happy Sven. But don't stop completely. What you are doing is big, and it's time is coming -- just not today. DCS still has too much ground to cover to get to a stable environment, but I do believe they will get there. Let them get the DCS worlds merged and see where we are. Some items can continue to be developed in the meantime. MOOSE totally changed the way I look at mission building and I see a future for it. But don't continue trying to do all the work yourself. Build a team and keep it moving forward. Thanks for all you have done so far.