"DCS: Combined Arms" for Armchair generals in the future?

[Fri13]

There has been topics, discussions and wishes about DCS to get ARMA 2/3 style infantry simulation or discussions about getting something direction to Steel Beasts from eSim.

But for either one I have come to believe is the totally wrong target group.

What I suggest, is to get bigger DCS user base that are willing to do other tasks as well than just fly, drive or walk a individual unit.

 

As in multiplayer, flying a single airplane can be effective. If you have one friend, two airplanes can be very effective. But same thing doesn't work for other positions. A single soldier is nothing against enemy ground troops or even air units. A single tank, car, truck or even SAM can be nearly useless.

 

- A first person shooter fan is not prepared to spend time to travel long distances or sit somewhere waiting that enemy units might come in his range. FPS players are not known for their patience.

- Flight simulator fans who fit to DCS target group, are people who love reading manuals, think and try different things in cockpit and just fly around. Spend even hours just completing missions with specific limited fuel etc.

 

Steel Beast is designed for company level tank platoon. Even that doesn't have huge maps when compared to DCS as ground units don't move so fast as airplanes and don't need to cover same kind tasks. But there are people ready to study tanks, ammunition, calculations of penetrations etc. Dedicated players like in DCS community. But the problem still exist.

A 4-6 driving around in tank can be at many places, but get a one enemy player with a Su-25T against them and odds are on Su-25T side as it is with 16 Vikhr.

 

So I believe the answer is among Armchair Generals, among RTS fans.

There are lots of fans for RTS games like Steel Panthers: World at War or even for games like Wargame EE/ALB/RD line.

RTS players often have little longer patience than FPS shooter, and if the RTS is made well, there is lots of things to do while there really doesn't much happening.

A single RTS player can command easily large groups of units. So single player can be very effective when it comes to multiplayer, creating complex large scale scenarios.

 

 

Not the greatest examples but added these:

 

 

 

 

RTS games allow often multiple players to co-operate and command same units on same side. And I think that is the direction where DCS.CA is tried to be developed.

But my suggestion is to start improving the RTS side in DCS:CA. It would require few things like:

 

1) Improved camera control system.

Like WSAD/Arrow keys to move camera around, mouse to look around. Mouse wheel to quickly zoom in and out. RTS player would be need to have way to spend most of his time on the world view (Ctrl+F11 now) instead on Map view (F10).

 

2) Clear symbols

A RTS player needs to have information of individual units and platoons or even companies easily. And that is where the zooming is great. But symbols and labels need to be there so player knows what is available and what is the status.

 

3) Direct command for each unit.

A RTS player needs to have easy way to command units as needed. Set ROE, Formations, Speed, Direction of the expected enemy etc etc.

For that the mouse is very great tool, just select the unit/group/platoon and quickly give commands what to do.

 

4) Information is dominance.

Fog of War, Delayed Intelligence reports, delays in radio commands, falsely identified targets. That is what would separate DCS:CA from other RTS games by really making the strategy and tactical information crucial. A RTS player would be required to plan recon missions, confirm information, share the information.

 

 

Sure we can say that the map view (F10) to command units etc is enough. But that is just giving commands to AI and just hope it doesn't screw up. Like AI doesn't do hull-down positions well or choose formations well, react to ambushes other way than either continue or spread out. On map view the commander can't see easily terrain, it isn't same thing as viewing a well made map from terrains that gives in about 1m accuracy the terrain shapes (we can get the terrain height under mouse cursor but not same thing) and see almost every individual rock there.

 

And RTS player isn't just giving commands to AI but likes to really swap between positions, from general to captain to lieutenant. Micromanager a individual unit in MBT platoon to flank, cover left side or engage specific target first. A RTS player could then even jump to individual ground unit to control it, get the feeling firing, driving around etc like now in DCS:CA.

A game commander that could spawn new units on map, would make very dynamic games for RTS players and pilots flying around.

 

The information and fog of war would be crucial for this. Instead having that immediately enemy unit is on LOS range, it would be detected and identified and reported, there would be delays. There would be simulation of individual ground units about its change to spot the unit, identify the unit (like how many knows which is T-62 and which is T-64 in quick glance?) and then report it via radio, tell its possible location and finally get the information to command. And RTS player would be required to play around the information that has high change to be false. Or be inaccurate. Like unit could be reported to be 0.5-1km from its place because there isn't clear landmarks in forest. It would make designing missions for pilots more difficult because pilots need to actually search the units then.

 

And then comes huge play for future modules like F-18 with ground radar, as it would give huge benefit to everyone. KA-50 could be used more as a recon helicopter than just attack helicopter.

It would make as well ambushes much more meaningful tactics when the units could not have time to report back being under attack or even react to threats. RTS player taking General position could not even get any information from it if ambush is successfully completed.

 

And this is something what would AI be required to changed too to be different in different skill levels. Instead having 360 degree field of view, reaction times like no one else, there would be need to have simulation to degree of view, scanning that field of view and have a possibility to spot, and then identify the target.

That would make ground attacks more interesting when helicopter pilot pop-up behind cover or concealment to engage targets. Targets could not just under a second turn all their guns at the threat and fire it down. It would take seconds to them even notice they are under a attack when first rockets or missiles already hits. Get the direction of the attacker and then start reacting.

 

It would make KA-50, AH-1W, Mi-8, A-10, Su-25 and other CAS pilots more changes to actually work. Realism to game if you will.

RTS players would be required to think about battle positions, LOS, formations and directions anyways.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Fri13
Added two images

[SDsc0rch]

oh.. very interesting idea

 

especially if there's a long-term, real-time, persistent environment........ : )

 

 

 

my concern though.... it "might" be risky to just hand over trust to some RTS 'general' (he has the BIG VIEW - all you know is your small picture of the world and you receive orders for your small unit)

 

but an intriguing concept, granted

 

could perhaps be resolved via a scoring/reputation system - ??

[Red Dragon-DK]

Wow some really good thoughts. I like the idea of how it cut be.

 

Thanks for your input.

[WinterH]

I do mostly agree, and for sometime myself wanted to start a thread to this effect.

 

Though, I think map view is fine, a more RTS like control from world view would be good but I think RTS like commander experience can be enhanced without going that far by simpler enhancements.

 

Spintires physics, ARMA like infantry and full fidelity tank sim ideas are all nice to dream, but I believe true value added by CA to DCS is commander aspect before and above all else. Also, I don't find former ideas to be realistically viable. Well may be full on tank sim could be. But none of these options, in my opinion, add to DCS world mission experience in a meaningful way compared to how much can improvements in CA as a strategy / tactics command interface.

 

Lets face it, what is one of the more pronounced shortcomings in our otherwise great sim? Dynamic missions / campaigns. With 1-2 human CA players on each side, this can change dramatically. They can act as commanders and tasking pilots with missions / directions, they can command and even personally control ground forces, they can act as AWACS / GCI, and make the mission much more dynamic, much more warlike than "you take off here, your waypoints are these, good luck".

 

Giving CA user ability to select multiple groups and task them at once, perhaps options to change group formations, instruct them to use roads / stay offroad, for vehicles with multiple weapon / munition options a sort of submenu to instruct them use a particular option among them would all go a long way improving CA commanders options for making missions more lively as far as ground forces are concerned. The ability to task individual units in a group would be nice as well.

 

Another thing I believe that could add a lot would be and ability for CA user to task groups with a preset AI algorithm and leave them be. What will the units in that group do would be handled by processing power of that particular client and would not burden the server. Say, for example, an infantry group, would be tasked with a preset "Look for cover and engage enemies", AI would then move these units to nearest object that can work as a cover and if enemies get close, it will move units as necessary to engage them, while CA user is working with whatever else in his map view.

 

Another addition that can change a lot would be an option to tell SAM untis at what distance to fire, because as it is, they tend to fire at maximum range and run out of missiles pretty quick, usually without achieving much.

[mwd2]

There are some user made scripts, which improve the behavior of the AI's:

 

Detection Script http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117424

 

Integrated Air Defense Script (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118175)

 

Suppression Fire Script (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=107635)

[Fri13]

There are some user made scripts, which improve the behavior of the AI's:

 

Detection Script http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117424

 

Integrated Air Defense Script (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118175)

 

Suppression Fire Script (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=107635)

 

Thanks, need to check those.

 

But hopefully in future those gets implemented to DCS itself so third party scripts isn't required.

 

Especially if we want more players that are not so interested to browse trough forums etc to search solutions to their problems or wishes.

[ChoSeungWan]

Definitely agree the RTS side should come first, but I think if you look at Project Reality then there is definitely room for infantry combat. The most important thing to avoid lone-wolfing is streamlined communication. The way PR does this is Mumble tied to the .exe and an intuitive squad menu system. I believe this is the key to getting players that aren't in a clan to cooperate, TS doesn't cut it.

 

If you bring in Receiver-style weapon mechanics, a manual on weapon operation & how to be a good boy and not piss off your squad leader you'd get people taking it seriously.

[ECV56_FOXONE]

oh.. very interesting idea

 

especially if there's a long-term, real-time, persistent environment........ : )

 

 

 

my concern though.... it "might" be risky to just hand over trust to some RTS 'general' (he has the BIG VIEW - all you know is your small picture of the world and you receive orders for your small unit)

 

but an intriguing concept, granted

 

could perhaps be resolved via a scoring/reputation system - ??

 

Counting what we saw, till now, this will not a Real Persistent Joint Combat Simulation, in the servers the pilots behavior is more like Counter Strike Global Offensive, I flew Strike Missions on servers with 40 pilots, without opposition, cause the fighters are all fraggers, that prior kills other fighters, against protect his own valuable targets. Maybe this change in the future and this sim becomes in a real life combat simulation, and all my thinks will be anecdotic, but what we see on servers with arcade flyers, gives me not much hopes.

 

Sorry about my english.

[AceRevo]

wow I just sent a email to Steel Beast about how they should get into DCS and this was the reply I got...

EDITED! I will leave this private message as it most probably was intended, private..

Guess I can share what Ive learned.. They have been in contact with matt (in the past) who apparently was not interested in

collaborating. They seemed to be pretty optimistic about a combined product, but with this and the challenges involved to make it actually happen, I dont want to get my hopes up..

 

 

I think a propper ''CA'' would benefit the world of DCS... I own CA but I dont use it as I find it kinda boring as it is now....... Like we have all these different planes as modules, it would be awesome to have seperate high detailed vehicle as a module, with a propper ''cockpit'' etc.... for online experience, you dont have to set up the vehicles to drive for hours to reach the battlefield.....

 

 

Edit: this was the message I sent them:

DCS-World.com

>

> You guys should have a talk with Eagle Dynamics, and their head chief Matt 'Wags' Wagner. Become a part of the digital combat simulator sandbox.

> With DCS World 2.0 beeing released with EDGE (Eagle Dynamics Graphic Engine) you will have a completley polished and ready world to enter with your product, which also would need a graphical update after seeing some youtube videos, for todays standards.

> Just saying :) Please enter the world of DCS. Your future could be here, with allready thousands of players willing to spend time studying whatever it takes to become a virtual tanker!

> Regards.

 

Hope Im not breaking any rules here forwarding this conversation :)

Edited March 4, 2015 by AceRevo

[sobek]

Well, it's usually a breech of netiquette to publicliy post private messages.

 

I suppose neither company wants to abandon their current engine and work as a 3rd party developer for the other.

Edited March 4, 2015 by sobek

[AceRevo]

Well, it's usually a breech of nettiquette to publicliy post private messages.

 

I suppose neither company wants to abandon their current engine and work as a 3rd party developer for the other.

 

True that.. I'll edit my post.