Is anyone still playing this ?

[jimcarrel]

Just to throw in, I bought CA last summer and have never even opened it up. Only bought to support Ed. It's enough for me just having time to learn the other documented modules, trying to figure out how to run CA without documentation is a no-goer for me. However, I'll support Ed anyway I'm able.

[karambiatos]

CA feels more like a demo then finished product and as demo it's good. Beside coop between human JTAC with A-10C human pilot there's not much to do. There is basically no interface for human driver beside blindly smashing keyboard commands hoping for action.

Same goes for Ground Commander screen, it is not too capable, plenty non-intuitive actions.

 

The radar screen on vehicles has improved things, its actually pretty fun to use those, though having the scan areas and displaying enemy aircraft inside of them for for all radars would great and you'd also be able to play as an AWACS which would be great.

[Shaman]

We have played as GCI/AWACS with ATC 3rd party tools and it was friendlier than CA experience ;]

[NineLine]

Just to throw in, I bought CA last summer and have never even opened it up. Only bought to support Ed. It's enough for me just having time to learn the other documented modules, trying to figure out how to run CA without documentation is a no-goer for me. However, I'll support Ed anyway I'm able.

 

 

Documentation is in the same locations as every other module, each module has its own doc folder, for CA its under mods/tech.

[NineLine]

CA feels more like a demo then finished product and as demo it's good. Beside coop between human JTAC with A-10C human pilot there's not much to do. There is basically no interface for human driver beside blindly smashing keyboard commands hoping for action.

Same goes for Ground Commander screen, it is not too capable, plenty non-intuitive actions.

 

Blindly smashing keyboard commands hoping for an action? Can I recommend the manual? Anyways, the primary goal for CA has always been giving a player in an aircraft control of ground forces, I use this all the time, its a great tool...

[KLR Rico]

Personally I'm not too interested in CA, but I can see the utility in it. I hope one day it gets to the point that people with no interest in flying but prefer the ground vehicles seek it out as the go-to simulation (like the DCS aircraft are). Having people on the ground en masse would be a huge game-changer for online play overall. Something like Arma, but you know... *good*. :)

[mwd2]

CA is a great tool to make a mission unpredictable without looking to deep into the trigger and script setup.

And AFAIK, we will get more tools, options and units in the coming years.

[oscar19681]

It does indeed feel like an unfinished product most of The time .

And i do agree that The fact that The AI can look trough trees and have Superman reactiontimes makes it hard to play in single player .

Also like to see The options to change skins for ground vehicles like we have for The aircraft modules . But it has Great potential And if given Some more love an The level of other modules it has The potential to rival even steel beasts pro .

[rrohde]

Never even tried it. Only bought it to support ED. :)

[upupandaway]

Blindly smashing keyboard commands hoping for an action? Can I recommend the manual? Anyways, the primary goal for CA has always been giving a player in an aircraft control of ground forces, I use this all the time, its a great tool...

 

I´ve never really used it like that, but I still think it is the most underestimated part of DCSW. Surely it adds a lot of depth to ground battles when used as you describe, but in my eyes the biggest potential lies in additional players defending target zones. Imagine 1-3 players defending an airfield with CA, constantly repositioning and hiding units, convoys etc. so they don´t stand out like a bullseye, and a couple of MiG-21s taking off to intercept the incoming attackers...

[NineLine]

Guys, its fine to suggest what you want to see in CA, but lets talk less about what ARMA does and what we think about it. Thanks.

[DieHard]

Found a couple more servers last night farther down (higher ping rate) the MP list that have CA included in their mission sorties.

 

Quite a few MP servers have CA integrated within their missions.

 

I like server missions to include A2G and A2A combat, not the training and dogfight only servers that mostly are up on the MP servers listing.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DieHard

[Demon]

I can hardly understand what to do with it. No tutorials or training.

 

And the fact that the mouse control is inverted makes it unplayable.

 

Then go to keybinds and change the axes for the mouse the same way you add or remove any other axis.

 

I'm not very good at CA, but it's definitely fun to use. Even if that just means placing down a Tunguska and killing a few UH-1Hs and B-52s when I'm bored :)

[Woogie]

We have missions set up we call drug runs. We will start a few different ground units at point X. That have to make it to point Z alive while the other players hunt them. its actually pretty tough and alot of fun.

[ff4life4]

Check out the 159th, very often they have CA spots.

 

One of my favorites is a mission where there is one guy on blue, with a mechanized force, trying to overrun an airfield, protected by red aircraft.

 

Was a real crapshoot when he snuck a tank within firing distance of the aircraft.

[Stanomatic]

I would play more if the accelerate pedal would work while driving. Pumping the gas is not fun game play.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106966&highlight=tank+slows

[Teapot]

I bought it to support DCS .. but haven't ever played it. Having said that I see a lot of potential for multiplayer dynamic battles sometime in the future .. even if it's to control the flow of air assets in battle. I'll try it one day!

[USSInchon]

I play it once and a while. It has a lot of potential, but it is still a bit clunky in the controls, but is a very powerful battlefield control platform.

[Mojeaux]

I would play more if the accelerate pedal would work while driving. Pumping the gas is not fun game play.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106966&highlight=tank+slows

 

Yes I HOLE Hartedly AGREE, However; CA is a hoot ..I sure hope they re-think the accelerator pedal thing that dose make it a bitch to operate...someone's idea of what they thought was a good thing! NOT!!!!!

[Darkwolf]

Check out the 159th, very often they have CA spots.

 

As far as i understood, server often crashes when too many units are moved around.

 

edit : By the way, we did a survey recently on an DCS facebook fanpage (800 members now) - CA ranked #5 in popularity, not far behind the others.

 

 

I'm sure once network is sorted, they is room for some nice battle.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Darkwolf

[vicx]

I played CA last night, three hours in game and one hour watching Tacview.

 

I took a mission I had already completed (without air support) and went game-master and tried playing it from the Opfor perspective - with the benefit of an all seeing eye.

 

I knew the A-10s would be trouble so I changed the weather to be 100% cloud cover at an average of 700m AGL. However the cloud cover didn't stop the the A-10s attacking my units at all (they cheat!) but the clouds did make my IR SAMs and anything relying on optical targeting completely blind against air threats.

 

The deck was obviously stacked and I was being destroyed by mavericks. So I ended the mission and decided to place some Radar SAMs. This is the first time I've had a look at the radar SAM units in CA. I didn't know much about the units so I chose a mixture without really knowing how it would turn out. I got a single Tunguska, two groups of a KUB systems with three launchers, and a BUK system with three launchers.

 

I started the mission and 45 seconds later my two KUB Groups (EAST and WEST) launched six SAMs at one aircraft. OK what is happening. I am the Commander and I can't get any of the officers on the radio. (Luckily I was able to watch what happened in Tacview a few hours later and this is why the officers widows will be having the cost of the missiles deducted from their pensions).

 

As it turns out my KUB radar could see the Blufor airfield which should have been quite handy. There were two A-10s already flying and the KUB groups had launched a missile from each launcher at one A-10 and it's chaff. The saddest part was that none of the KUB missiles made it to anywhere near their target. They had engaged aircraft well outside their range. The A-10 was easily inside the range of the radar but not not really close to engagement range for the missiles. Also the KUB missile is not that great compared to the the BUK.

 

The one upside to the premature launch was that the A-10 was so spooked by being targeted by 6 SAMs that it had dropped it's ordinance and started farting chaff. None of the missiles had made to within 4km of their target. Then KUB Group-East (for no good reason) launches 2 more missiles that will do nada.

 

BUK group sees the complete ineptitude of the KUB groups. They were watching the whole time smoking cigarettes and only now decide to take action. In an amazing demonstration of self-control they launch ONLY four 9M38M1 SAMS at a single poor A-10C (CAS 11). I can say now that the 9M38M1 is a great bang-for-BUK solution :smilewink:

 

The first 9M38M1 hits A-10C (CAS 11). The other three 9M38M1 flame out with no target.

 

Two minutes have passed and one A-10 is destroyed (pilot ejects) but 13 SAMS have been fired which is a third of all available missiles. Of course I don't include the Tunguska which I hold in reserve for the SEAD counter that I know will come. As commander I am glad that it has obeyed instructions and holds fire.

 

BUK Group still have an A-10C and two F-16s on the radar (Do they call me on the radio to let me know. Of course not, I'm only the commander.) Without authorization they launch 6 SAMs at the remaining A-10C who sees them coming and hits the deck. In the mean time the second KUB Group also without authorization launch 4 SAMs.

 

There are 10 SAMS in the air.

 

SAMs targeted at the A-10C lose lock but re-lock onto an F-16 flying above, which breaks formation and ditches it's ordinance. The F-16 is flying high and is beyond their range.

 

10 SAMs wasted. What are my men doing.

 

What happens next is either a fluke or my units did something right. The A-10C climbs out of the weeds (if he thinks my men will wait for a better shot, he is wrong). KUB Group-West launch two SAMs that have no chance of a hit, but thankfully ten seconds later BUK group launches a SAM that has a good chance. The A-10C takes evasive against the 3M9M but misses the 9M38M1 which is the real threat and it slams into him. Much better.

 

Still this is concerning. BUK Group has no more missiles and KUB Groups have only 12 missiles left between them. We can hear the props from two or more unmanned drones above the clouds. Our radars cannot detect them (they cheat!) or maybe they are stealth. We really would love to shoot them down.

 

KUB Group-East fires two more silly shots at an F-16. We can not afford to waste missiles but fortunately the inexperienced F-16 pilot has seen too many SAMS today and he ditches his ordinance. It is a relief, the only aircraft in the sky at the moment are unarmed. Perhaps I can turn my attention to the ground attack. But no. Two A-10C have just launched from the blue airfield. We have no BUK missiles left, and only 6 dud missles in the KUB groups.

 

This is something I need to take care of myself. Take me to the Tunguska ...

Edited October 23, 2014 by vicx
typo

[vicx]

As a follow up to that last post. As it turns out I was completely out of missiles. An excellent skill pilot then took out the Tunguska and a KUB search radar in a single run. It was about to start raining mavericks and bombs so I ordered the BUK group towards cover and turned my attention to the ground attack. Twenty minutes later I noticed that some of the BUK group units hadn't moved. I started toggling the ROE settings to try and fix things when I noticed one of the launchers had re-armed. This was pretty interesting to me because I did not know they could be re-armed.

 

Two A-10s were now overhead so I set the launchers to fire at will and five seconds later a SAM missile took off. It hit one of the A-10s from underneath; one shot, one kill. After that the fields were filled with smoking airframes including the F-16's. I used the KUB units for bait and sniped with the BUK launchers. After that the M1 Tanks were the only real threat and the airfield was then taken.

 

This week I've been testing out the SAM units and looking at the IADS script by Grimes; What I know now is that networked air defenses are a thing of beauty but you aren't going to see the beauty if you rely on the CA AI.

 

In all areas of CA you have to micro-manage the AI but I don't see that is inherently bad. I just wish that the micro-management was more fluid and felt more natural. I feel like there is some stuff that can be done with scripts to test some ideas out ... or we could wait for CA 2.0.

[Tumbleweed]

I noticed one of the launchers had re-armed. This was pretty interesting to me because I did not know they could be re-armed.

 

During my searching for how to control CA I came across some info that suggests certain units can re-arm if in proximity to certain supply vehicles.

Don't know if that's what happened in your case but I thought I'd put it out there.

 

Can't remember what vehicles can be resupplied as I only briefly skim read the info because I was looking for something relating to laser targeting and the battle computer on tanks.

[mwd2]

M818 for Blue and Ural-375 for Red.

[vicx]

I actually think the units re-arm without a Ural being present. Of course I will have to test this claim.