Revisiting CA

[Marko321]

I have owned CA for a while.

I have been critical of it in the past.

My Bad I was expecting to much

As a life long armour simmer I expected all the bells and whistles I Considered necessary for a Tank simulation. And have to say I was very Disappointed when I first purchased it and shelved it till recently.

Till a few members from a VU I am a member of decided to run DCS

Using the various modules we had purchased . I Focused on CA while the Others were in Su-25 KA-50 . And I have to say we really enjoyed it

It really does come to fruition in MP game play I could make a very long list

Of what it would need to be a Tank sim but used for what it was designed for Its worth the money

I would hope ED would make a few Improvements like dynamic lead for the FCS. Better ballistics etc if they do it has the makings of a pretty decent stand alone Tank sim

[Sceptre]

I would hope ED would make a few Improvements like dynamic lead for the FCS. Better ballistics etc if they do it has the makings of a pretty decent stand alone Tank sim

 

I completely agree, however, the goal of DCS World is to have all the playable modules in the same "operating system" so in multiplayer, you can have pretty much everything player controlled. DCS is slowly but surely achieving this goal :)

With the upcoming release of EDGE, you should enjoy CA a LOT more, with the nice pretty visuals and the Nevada map, it's going to be great

[Sabre-TLA]

We have had some great fun lately with CA integrated with some air missions.

 

You can read about some of the experiences here and here.

[Marko321]

We have had some great fun lately with CA integrated with some air missions.

 

You can read about some of the experiences here and here.

 

Me and the guys are only starting to experiment with CA and the whole CAS

Operations side to DCS. your AAR made for a good read. thanks

[JNASova]

In CA, every vehicle may be the DCS module it self, but that would be too much.Maby we shud have Abrams and T 90 as separete DCS module.It vould be nice to have SAM systems OSA.Strela,Tor as DCS module to.

I think ED urgently need to work on procedures aiming when it comes to artillery,that it should be raised to a much higher level, as in ARMA 2.

And we shud be able to use SAO 2S9 "nona" :devil:

Fragmentation shud be modeled to.

Edited July 5, 2014 by =JNA=Sova

[Exorcet]

CA, like the other modules, with grow as DCSW does. You also might not have seen, but ED did specifically ask for detailed information on ground vehicles. They may be providing full simulations of tanks, etc on the level of planes in the future.

[JNASova]

CA, like the other modules, with grow as DCSW does. You also might not have seen, but ED did specifically ask for detailed information on ground vehicles. They may be providing full simulations of tanks, etc on the level of planes in the future.

 

Amen.

[ENO]

I have owned CA for a while.

I have been critical of it in the past.

My Bad I was expecting to much

 

I am this guy too- and while I still get frustrated with the control of various vehicles, the path finding issues, all seeing AI etc I remain excited about the potential.

 

I have human JTAC spots in most of my missions for the very simple reason that when they're in place, it completely changes the dynamics of the missions.

 

I do generally put in a ground commander position when one is warranted but I don't find it is taken very often... or if it is its when there is no more flying to do so the mission does tend to get a little disjointed- not many people want to use it for the reasons (and more) listed above. Not to mention the impact / lag of moving groups of units around with GC orders-

 

But I'm hanging on TIGHT to the hope that a couple of these issues will get knocked off the list and suddenly we'll have a ton of folks who had been waiting on the sidelines join the field and massage the module to greatness!

[SDsc0rch]

all this airdale stuff is (in the real world) all "for" one end - that is the support of the ground troops

 

flight sims (and us users) tend to put the cart before the horse and focus entirely on the fast-mover "jet" experience (or prop a/c etc - you get what i'm trying to say..)

 

maybe a focus on ground forces isn't your cup of tea - but at least CA "starts" to enable the possibility that ground forces get the attention and emphasis that exists in an actual conflict

 

i haven't gotten into building missions yet but when i do expect to see number one a ground war - and ground forces - and an objective ---- and the airdales (ie YOU) flying a mission in support of that

 

yes, at times there are strategic objectives that the air component is going to have to address (and those surely are "fun") but the focus needs to be and should be the support of ground forces

 

doesn't matter how many strategic targets you've bombed - or how many a/c you shot down, when you come back to your base and there are enemy tanks occupying.. none of that will matter - you will have won the battles and lost the war

[Marko321]

all this airdale stuff is (in the real world) all "for" one end - that is the support of the ground troops

 

flight sims (and us users) tend to put the cart before the horse and focus entirely on the fast-mover "jet" experience (or prop a/c etc - you get what i'm trying to say..)

 

maybe a focus on ground forces isn't your cup of tea - but at least CA "starts" to enable the possibility that ground forces get the attention and emphasis that exists in an actual conflict

 

i haven't gotten into building missions yet but when i do expect to see number one a ground war - and ground forces - and an objective ---- and the airdales (ie YOU) flying a mission in support of that

 

yes, at times there are strategic objectives that the air component is going to have to address (and those surely are "fun") but the focus needs to be and should be the support of ground forces

 

doesn't matter how many strategic targets you've bombed - or how many a/c you shot down, when you come back to your base and there are enemy tanks occupying.. none of that will matter - you will have won the battles and lost the war

 

+1

 

Been working on the mission editor its pretty easy to use.

For the CA forces anyway. Cant get my fast movers to bomb Targets though

I am in the process of making a simplistic mission.

Play tested it yesterday It worked quite well.

I simply used one of the default missions added and subtracted what I wanted. CA works well as a RTS

[Darkwolf]

You must see CA as a strategic interface within DCS with integrated JTAC capability.

consider driving stuff around is just an option and not the main "feature" of the product.

 

I appreciate CA this way. Quite frankly, the control system just sucks. FCS is a welcome addition but stays ages behind what would qualify as decent. They is no IR sight. They is no decent ground troops system (imho - should really inspirate from Combat Mission, versus having infantry as single entity).... But keeping in mind this is more a strategic system than a vehicle simulation make the pain less harder :)

[FraserNZL]

I've heard that there are going to be DCS Armour modules and i remember reading somewhere that wags was looking for all info he could find on the Abrams (interiors and such) not sure what version but sounds good all the same

[Marko321]

I've heard that there are going to be DCS Armour modules and i remember reading somewhere that wags was looking for all info he could find on the Abrams (interiors and such) not sure what version but sounds good all the same

 

And what a fantastic addition it would make.

I would certainly purchase it at full price. Lol

 

 

The guys and I ran the mission I worked on the weekend.

I was really cool watching the Su25 and the KA-50 decimate the Opfor.

My tanks and IFV's still took losses but we accomplished the mission

At the moment were still finding are feet as to SEAD OPS and so on.

one thing I do miss compared to the other milsim I play is the ability to

Put graphics on map in game. we using smoke to mark the targets currently

The next step is to crank up the Opfor for the next mission.

Maybe with the A10C and some F-16 fighters.

[vicx]

I bought into DCS partially because of the promise offered by Combined Arms. I am not really interested in dog-fighting but an air-sea-land combat engine that can be modified with LUA files is pretty interesting.

 

It is clear that ED are committed to improving CA with the resources they have but I am VERY impatient which is why I like to keep an eye on what people are doing with mods. IMO it is a good sign when people start using your engine to stack humvees http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126516.

 

I've also been reading up on ROS http://ros.org lately; which is a Pub/Sub framework and a growing set of libraries for robotics. All the problems and solutions in ROS seem very similar to what you would encounter in a distributed simulation.