Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

 

I Agree,  however Il2 just delivers in such a different way despite being very low fidelity in comparison.
That analogy is wrong int that it assumes you have no cholice but to walk into 'a hamburger joint', use that same analogy in a different context. Say- A high street..
You walk down the high street and see 10 vendors selling pizza, and a single vendor selling burgers..

Id say that would give you a clear and open vision of what food was popular (or rather -what sells).

Then take a look at the servers and players we have, and ask ourselves why Il2 does so well with their game numbers both in single player on steam, and online despite us having the far superior game

 

I agree that the modules are phenomenal in detail and like yourself, i have nearly all of them.
My only reasons to not owning a module, only revolve around limitations to myself in the game and others 'not buying certain modules', so id welcome anyone who can make a module that comes with 'no limitations', not just cost, but accessibility in gameplay too.

No the analogy was quite accurate. You can't tell by going into a burger joint who in the crowd likes pizza. Some of the patrons no doubt will like pizza, but they are sitting there because of the burger they are about to eat. DCS is primarily a flight sim. There is no doubt that some here are into/will support ground vehicles, but the vast majority here come to fly. Offer ground vehicles/infantry with the same level of detail and ED will not only convince some of the regulars here to support it, but they will attract a new type of customer that is likely to swing the other way in terms of support once they are in. ie came for the armor, and learned to fly.

[StevanJ]

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

No the analogy was quite accurate. You can't tell by going into a burger joint who in the crowd likes pizza. Some of the patrons no doubt will like pizza, but they are sitting there because of the burger they are about to eat. DCS is primarily a flight sim. There is no doubt that some here are into/will support ground vehicles, but the vast majority here come to fly. Offer ground vehicles/infantry with the same level of detail and ED will not only convince some of the regulars here to support it, but they will attract a new type of customer that is likely to swing the other way in terms of support once they are in. ie came for the armor, and learned to fly.

We can go back and forward like this forever, the analogy wont work, because some will come to fly modern helicopters, some for Warbrids, some for Cold war, some wont have maps etc, the list goes on, there are too many differing variables, and in the way your analogy looks at 'food flavours' in a 'burger joint'.
Choice becomes more abundant with each module thats released, and only ED will have the real world figures to tell us 'who prefers burgers to pizza' and with those numbers, they can pick and choose where to put the 'most profitable' development, and where to 'outsource' the stuff that would sit on the fence..
I cant imagine ED looking at figures and outsourcing stuff thats not profitable, its easier to sell the work at a price.

The common subject we have is flight, or in your analogy 'food'. Just like if you were hungry, youd go to Just eat for 'food'. Youre suggesting, that choice of restaraunt wouldnt be available, and its incorrect.
Luckily, thanks to the modules we have, we have an incredible amount of choice. We're not limited to a single module, or even a single game, the choice is wide and far.
Once you arrive at 'Just eat/ DCS' you pick what it is you want to 'eat/do'.. But essentially, we all want to fly/eat.
Any module that increases that immersion towards flight is definitely wanted. The problem were having is deciding where that line ends. Some dont want the asset packs, some do, some just want a certain asset pack.
And so the discussion goes on.

Your analogy assumes, we're ordering from one restaraunt when in fact, the number of players on this platform have already made and established the game by purchasing the modules and creting a 'market' for supply and demand, they know what they like and now a market exists for a certain 'genre' of aircraft (cold war, WW2, Modern, choppers etc).
You cant eliminate the choice of 'restaraunts' on offer, because DCS has such a diverse and different amount of modules.
And such an example would never exist anymore.
Use the same analogy in Il2 'I bought Il2 and no one seems to like the FA18', well thats not possible, because youve taken away the choice and reason to why youd be in that game in the first place. Youd never be in a burger place complaining that they dont sell pizza. In the same way, youd never buy the Huey, and complain you cant use the Hornet.
It cant work, because its biased towards Il2, in the same way youre biased towards 'being in the burger joint'.

Anyway- we are now going wildly off topic.
Lets just say, youre right and leave it there.
And hope we get some feedback soon, so we can start figuring out where to spend our money.
And how else we can can enjoy the game.
 

[Silver_Dragon]

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

[Callsign112]

I'm not here to prove I'm right and your wrong, but the point that seems to have tripped you up was really meant for the person who stated an interest in ground crews for airfields over ground vehicles. I was just pointing out that his stated interest is likely to be the popular vote here being that DCS is primarily a flight sim. I never mentioned anything about choice and which game/sim sells more. I was just pointing out that most of the people that come here are into flying stuff, so the ground crew for airfields is probably a shoe-in. 

[Callsign112]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

But I think it is still fair to say that something like Combined Arms has received a lot less attention then the maps/jets/planes/choppers. That is what makes the OP's announcement so exciting for me. It has opened the possibility that the ground war side of things will see more development.

[3WA]

13 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

Awesome!  I really want to see you guys start building your World!  And I'm sure many militaries would be interested in what you have to sell.  As will Arma players, who are now realizing it's over for that game.  They're looking for something new now, and DCS would be right up their alley, when the Ground is finally developed.  Flight sim only is DEAD.  Arma tried to make a World, but it was never realistic.  In fact, it was pretty bad.  You guys are WAYYY ahead of what others have tried to do, and I would say you have achieved the hardest part of it - the Flight Simulation.  The new clouds are just amazing!  I can hardly wait to see what you and 3rd parties will do with the Ground, as being a Shark pilot, that is where I spend all my time, zipping among the trees.

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But I think it is still fair to say that something like Combined Arms has received a lot less attention then the maps/jets/planes/choppers. That is what makes the OP's announcement so exciting for me. It has opened the possibility that the ground war side of things will see more development.

Yeah, that's because Combined Arms is a joke that is worse than Arma.  More like a small experiment that never got developed.  Even I'm not interested in it, in it's current state.

 

If you build it, they will come.

Edited March 4, 2021 by 3WA

[draconus]

Guys, please, you're running in circles by saying all the same thing again and again.
One of you will buy anything unless it comes with paid DLC assets that prevent players to join the server using it - we get it - no point in repeating that.

One of you dream of DCS FPS - it was pointed out many times in this very thread why it is very far from that to happen in near future.

What both of you does not seem to grasp is how all the mentioned games are different from each other and what target players they aim for. I presume that even if all DCS modules were free and there were highly realistic playable tanks and soldiers added right now we won't reach the same millions of users as other games simply because it's not what most players crave for in the first place, at least not in current engine and environment.

Please manage your expectations. DCS moves on and we all witness that but the impovement and development (with bug squashing on its way) is a slow process and it takes time. I'm glad to be part of it and look forward to the future with optimism but for sure there will be no sudden massive flow of users because of your x feature added.

Edited March 5, 2021 by draconus

[3WA]

On 3/3/2021 at 5:43 PM, 3WA said:

Yeah, same thing I understood.  Right now, it looks like they want to start with better AI and models for ground troops / vehicles, and then get into Vehicle modules later when they are more comfortable with the DCS ground and code.  Sounds good to me!  VERY WELCOME!!

I think most of us are good with this for now.  First, much better assets and AI, then later, start thinking about making vehicle modules.

[Slick_441]

IMO DCS could really use a 3rd party team just working on including more modern AI assets. Just air units alone would be a huge job. 

Tankers:

A310 MRT (RCAF, Luftwaffe)
KC-767 (JASDF, USAF, Italy)
Voyager KC.Mk 2 (RAF, RAAF)

 

 

Cargo:

 

C-5

Updated C-17

C-130J

C-160

C-27

A400

Y-20

AN-124

CN-235

C-2

AN-22

 

 

Trainers:

 

T-6 II (USAF, RCAF, RAF, IAF, NZAF, and more...)

T-38 (USAF, NASA)

T-50 (ROKAF, RTAF, Iraq)

T-4 (JASDF)

Hawk 100/200

 

 

Helicopters:

 

CH-148 (RCAF)

AW101 (RCAF, RAF, Denmark, Norway, JMSDF, Italy)

Bell 412 (RCAF, RAF, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, ROKAF, and more...)

H-60 Variants

Lynx

OH-6

T-129

Z-10

Z-20
NH-90
 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Slick_441

[Andrew8604]

Well, I had a lot of fun with Combined Arms in single player in the Nevada map driving a vehicle in a lightly armed convoy of a dozen or so, on a 3-hour trek along highways in the Nevada desert, "to get supplies to a remote outpost".  I set things up in ME so that the vehicle convoy was attacked about 4 times by pairs of AI aircraft.  But one thing I did was restrict the use of air-to-surface missiles...just guns, bombs and rockets.  I also had the convoy encounter some enemy ground forces, including some T-55 tanks...that was brutal.  But with improved AI and improved vehicle details it could be oh so much better!

Then I switched to using Rift S VR goggles...where the operating of ships' guns and ground vehicles is visually/functionally broken and unusable, with no apparent plans to fix it.

I use VR goggles exclusively in DCS, flying aircraft.  It is so much more immersive.  Head tracking with Rift S is nearly perfect, 1-to-1.  If I want to look behind me, I have to physically turn my body around, as I'd have to in a real aircraft (no swivel chair).

 

I think, driving and manning guns on ground vehicles would be awesome in VR with detailed vehicles.  I had always wanted AI to drive the Humvee while I manned the 50-cal up top.  Or to be able to drive with AI manning the gun.  As is, it seems like once you took control of the vehicle, you were the sole occupant.

 

You might want to get your feet wet in DCS by first supplying animated, AI ground equipment, vehicles and personnel on an airbase...Nellis AFB, for instance.  But how will that impact framerate?  It's such a large base, I usually only use a small part of the ramp.  If there were animated ground crews and vehicles around enough ramp space for 12 to 16 aircraft, that might not be too hard on framerate?  I would think that would really bring the airbase to life and realism.  Doesn't have to be overly done.  Just what you might see on a real airbase.  Ground crew to direct you out of parking to the taxiways and back into parking on return.  Creech AFB might be a better place to start.

 

But it sounds like your aim is surface combat.  If it worked in VR, I'd love to get back to driving some vehicles...realistically detailed vehicles with functional systems...same as the aircraft.  Your fan-base for this might be limited, though.  Improvement of AI would be very important, I think.  Even if the AI had to be run on a separate computer, to simulate all the ground units, I'd get a 2nd computer for that.

 

I don't suppose you would be interested in creating a bunch of WWII, Pacific Theater, surface combat ships for DCS?

 

 

 

[Callsign112]

On 3/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, draconus said:

Guys, please, you're running in circles by saying all the same thing again and again.
One of you will buy anything unless it comes with paid DLC assets that prevent players to join the server using it - we get it - no point in repeating that.

One of you dream of DCS FPS - it was pointed out many times in this very thread why it is very far from that to happen in near future.

What both of you does not seem to grasp is how all the mentioned games are different from each other and what target players they aim for. I presume that even if all DCS modules were free and there were highly realistic playable tanks and soldiers added right now we won't reach the same millions of users as other games simply because it's not what most players crave for in the first place, at least not in current engine and environment.

Please manage your expectations. DCS moves on and we all witness that but the impovement and development (with bug squashing on its way) is a slow process and it takes time. I'm glad to be part of it and look forward to the future with optimism but for sure there will be no sudden massive flow of users because of your x feature added.

 

I understand and agree with you point regarding the circular argument that developed, but if your presumptions are correct, then it couldn't spell good news for ED and their DCS product. I would think if DCS had realistic playable tanks, smart AI soldiers, and offered all of its modules for free that they would easily exceed the user base of any comparative products. I share your optimism and look forward to future improvements, but I think it is fair to say that what sells jets are all the x features added.

[dawgie79]

On 3/4/2021 at 8:40 PM, Callsign112 said:

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 

But maps, super carriers, and modern jet fighters are obviously huge projects that eat up the majority of resources, so bringing in a third party to help out is probably a reasonable way to move forward.

 

I never said anything about proof for this or that. I merely stated I would only buy ground crews for AFBs. Nothing more, nothing less. What other people want or don't want isn't my concern.

[Callsign112]

53 minutes ago, dawgie79 said:

I never said anything about proof for this or that. I merely stated I would only buy ground crews for AFBs. Nothing more, nothing less. What other people want or don't want isn't my concern.

I realize that. The example I gave was in support of my opinion that most here are more likely to show interest in ground crews for air fields before they would support crews for ground vehicles. So my comment is not directed at you alone, but includes in a general sense the community. It was in that context that I was simply pointing out that because we are largely a flight sim community doesn't mean the ground war side of DCS wouldn't/couldn't grow. I was using the word "you" figuratively, I should have wrote "a person wouldn't go...".

 

My apologies.

[3WA]

What a lot of players on here are not realizing, is that there is a ground war going on already.  Helicopter and Attack Jet pilots are not up in the clouds like all the jets.  We're at most a few 100 feet above the ground ( usually MUCH closer ), and so yeah, we're looking for much more intelligence, infantry and vehicle variety, and scenery down there.  Being a Shark pilot, a lot of times, I'm skimming about 7 or 8 feet above the ground, keeping trees between me and the enemy.

[draconus]

@Callsign112I think ED knows well how niche their market is. What I'm trying to say is that most gamers don't find fun in super realistic products.

By "feature x" I meant all those general things that users use to say DCS lacks be it AI, ground units, dynamic campaign, weather, ATC... you name it.

[3WA]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

@Callsign112I think ED knows well how niche their market is. What I'm trying to say is that most gamers don't find fun in super realistic products.

By "feature x" I meant all those general things that users use to say DCS lacks be it AI, ground units, dynamic campaign, weather, ATC... you name it.

Well, there are the gamers like me.  I played Arma with the ACE 2 mod, which tried to introduce a lot more realism into the game.  A lot of us liked using that mod.  The big problem for us Arma people was that we could never get any real flight sim in.  It was FARRR beyond the abilities of that engine.  Before that I played the UT mod Infiltration, and now Ground Branch ( realistic Infantry ).  However, neither UT nor Arma ever had realistic vehicles which a lot of people wanted also.  So this time, if we start looking at the Ground, we will just be approaching the problem from the other end, starting with flight sim.  And to me, the flight sim is what no one could ever do.  So, if you look at it, you guys have done the HARDEST part of the simulation.  When you say "gamers" above, you're talking about the "Battlefield" types, and yeah, most of those just want an Xbox like game where they can blow steam.  But there are many of us Arma, Ground Branch, Squad, etc. types who ARE looking for something more.  A Realistic Arma type simulation.

 

But for right now, I hope to get better ground graphics, a little more imagination in the maps, definitely MUCH smarter AI, and more realistic infantry groups, vehicle assets - including SAMS, Command and Control Networks, Electronic Warfare, etc.  Realistic groups of vehicles and infantry that should go together, like Motorized and Mechanized Infantry groups, etc., that can be placed around the map in the Editor.  At least this would start pushing towards more of an RTS sim down on the Ground, without having to get into vehicle modules and FPS yet.  You've done a good job with the Sky (those new clouds are gorgeous), now start taking a look at the Ground, which has been really neglected.

Edited March 7, 2021 by 3WA

[dawgie79]

On 3/6/2021 at 5:50 PM, Callsign112 said:

I realize that. The example I gave was in support of my opinion that most here are more likely to show interest in ground crews for air fields before they would support crews for ground vehicles. So my comment is not directed at you alone, but includes in a general sense the community. It was in that context that I was simply pointing out that because we are largely a flight sim community doesn't mean the ground war side of DCS wouldn't/couldn't grow. I was using the word "you" figuratively, I should have wrote "a person wouldn't go...".

 

My apologies.

Thanks for the clarification mate. And no need to apologize, we're all friends here ain't we?  

[Callsign112]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:24 PM, 3WA said:

Well, there are the gamers like me.  I played Arma with the ACE 2 mod, which tried to introduce a lot more realism into the game.  A lot of us liked using that mod.  The big problem for us Arma people was that we could never get any real flight sim in.  It was FARRR beyond the abilities of that engine.  Before that I played the UT mod Infiltration, and now Ground Branch ( realistic Infantry ).  However, neither UT nor Arma ever had realistic vehicles which a lot of people wanted also.  So this time, if we start looking at the Ground, we will just be approaching the problem from the other end, starting with flight sim.  And to me, the flight sim is what no one could ever do.  So, if you look at it, you guys have done the HARDEST part of the simulation.  When you say "gamers" above, you're talking about the "Battlefield" types, and yeah, most of those just want an Xbox like game where they can blow steam.  But there are many of us Arma, Ground Branch, Squad, etc. types who ARE looking for something more.  A Realistic Arma type simulation.

 

But for right now, I hope to get better ground graphics, a little more imagination in the maps, definitely MUCH smarter AI, and more realistic infantry groups, vehicle assets - including SAMS, Command and Control Networks, Electronic Warfare, etc.  Realistic groups of vehicles and infantry that should go together, like Motorized and Mechanized Infantry groups, etc., that can be placed around the map in the Editor.  At least this would start pushing towards more of an RTS sim down on the Ground, without having to get into vehicle modules and FPS yet.  You've done a good job with the Sky (those new clouds are gorgeous), now start taking a look at the Ground, which has been really neglected.

 

Being primarily a flight SIM, it comes as no surprise that the vast majority of energy has been focused on serving the flying interests of the DCS customer base. But I couldn't agree more with you, I would really like to see the ground force side of things develop further.

 

Based on the number of successful ground war themed games that have come to market, I think it is safe to say that reasons not to develop the ground war side of DCS have nothing to do with a lack of public interest. If we take the competitor flight sim to DCS as a recent example, they started a tank crew module as an in-house project with almost no committed resources as the story goes, and two years later according to the story as it continues to be told, it is that franchise's fastest growing segment today. WWII armored fighting vehicle games/simulators are very popular.

 

While Battle Field Productions works on getting its feet wet in the DCS ecosystem, I was wondering whether ED would see any value in developing its WWII assets pack into more of a "Tank Crew" module? ED already has the maps, vehicles with decent external view, a robust mission editor, and more importantly, the foundation framework for an AI infantry, which could be seen as a major advantage to the DCS game set. 

 

Having fully detailed interiors is great, but it basically comes down to being eye-candy in terms of actual game play. If it would lighten the programing/development load a bit, fully detailed interiors wouldn't be essential. What is more important would be to have the function and controls of each station modeled. It would be enough to have just the periscope/visor view of each position, and the open hatch view for those that had them. Something closer to PostScriptum works very well for immersive game play, if you also include an accurate damage model, physics model for gun penetration, and running gear/tracks.

 

It would be great to see this product develop further.

 

 

11 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

Thanks for the clarification mate. And no need to apologize, we're all friends here ain't we?  

Edited March 8, 2021 by Callsign112

[sergkar]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Based on the number of successful ground war themed games that have come to market

 

That may be a little off topic, but I'm actually looking for a good tank sim. So far the best I found is ArmA 3, but it somehow feels odd. CA feels actually pretty good but lacks too much to be called a sim (with the missing campaigns it can't even really be called a game). What else I could find, but didn't try also seems to be not the right thing.

 

Here on DCS I think it could be some 3 to 6 years until anything better surfaces - if at all - so if anybody has tips. You can just PM to not clutter the thread.

[3WA]

The only decent Tank sim is Steel Beasts.  That's what I'm hoping DCS can develop in it's World one day.  It's rumored they are why DCS didn't develop the M1A1 module.  I see no reason DCS shouldn't compete with them.  DCS has a MUCH better World, IMO.

 

But first, all the AI assets to fill this World with.  Vehicles, armor battalions, mechanized infantry, motorized infantry, many different types of regular infantry.  SAMS, AAA, artillery.

 

Command Structures and Networks.  Military Bases.  Orbital Weaponry

 

I think the majority of players here could agree on that.  That would fit into the Flight Simulation still, by giving the players a Living World below them.  And, of course, the AI will have to become much better.

 

Then, after this, DCS or Third Parties could start to make some of them into actual, fully fleshed out modules, like M1A2D Tank.

Edited March 8, 2021 by 3WA

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, sergkar said:

 

That may be a little off topic, but I'm actually looking for a good tank sim. So far the best I found is ArmA 3, but it somehow feels odd. CA feels actually pretty good but lacks too much to be called a sim (with the missing campaigns it can't even really be called a game). What else I could find, but didn't try also seems to be not the right thing.

 

Here on DCS I think it could be some 3 to 6 years until anything better surfaces - if at all - so if anybody has tips. You can just PM to not clutter the thread.

I think the text you quoted is very much on topic. The OP was interested in getting feedback on what we think of the idea being proposed. Based on the number of ground war based games/sims, I think it is a very good idea, and hope they are able to work something out with ED. I will support the effort if they do. As a WWII tank sim, I can recommend IL2 Tank Crew.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, 3WA said:

The only decent Tank sim is Steel Beasts.  That's what I'm hoping DCS can develop in it's World one day.

 

Steel beasts is not a decent one. Far from it. It is the best there is. It is officially used by many militaries in crew training. They have actual real controllers attached to PC and they simulate training exercises via it.

 

The ARMA 3 Tank DLC is a decent one, the ones that added interiors. But then there are better ones like the Steel Armor that does T-62 and M60A1.

 

Then before those we need to go to old school, the Microprose "Tank Platoon II" that was destined to be paired with the Microprose Gunship! (There is a unofficial mod that opens the network gameplay, you can fly as Mi-28/AH-64D/Tiger while friends drive M1A1. You could fight together or against, delivering support to each other).

 

What the DCS World needs, is more like a ARMA 2 or 3 level ones. Not required to be as advanced as in Steel Beasts, but offer proper sights, positions and radio/datalink.

Sure it is nice to see a interior, but you anyways mostly stare optics or displays and not much is required really.

 

The DCS maps are almost at the ARMA 2 level in details, or could be said that Canal map is already there if just getting more ground clutter, and of course if the rendering distance problem could be solved so units would blend to surroundings instead stick out as 3D models like now.

 

The DCS can't really handle a infantry simulation and even a individual vehicles like MBT modeling is more out of the scale. Commanding platoon or a company instead would work very well.

 

DCS World can support individual Anti-Air units like ZSU-23-4 or Strela-10M4 as commander, but not the tanks really for the required level.

 

A vehicle crew member is not a glorious game time. It is mostly just waiting, preparing and then just moving slowly and carefully. 

 

Why pilots has fancy time as 60-90 minutes can give good 15-20 min value time that is filled with landing/take-off phases and then few minutes of actually combat. Otherwise just navigation and observation.

 

Now how many would want to sit in a tank for 4-6 hours doing nothing?

For days it would be doing nothing really.

 

At least SAM operator get to look a radar display and listen radio communication etc.

 

 The OP is on exactly right track to start providing mode units, and ED job is to start making terrains to support it and add the RTS element where Combined Arms is more about RTS than anything else.

 

 

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

 

Then before those we need to go to old school, the Microprose "Tank Platoon II" that was destined to be paired with the Microprose Gunship! (There is a unofficial mod that opens the network gameplay, you can fly as Mi-28/AH-64D/Tiger while friends drive M1A1. You could fight together or against, delivering support to each other).

 

 

 

 

First time I ever heard about such mod. Do you remember the name?

[Fri13]

58 minutes ago, Stratos said:

First time I ever heard about such mod. Do you remember the name?

 

I don't think it had a name, just a unofficial patch that was back then available somewhere in the fans maintained sites, that are almost all already gone years ago. 

 

Some fancy history you can find here: http://www.tanksim.com/topic2.htm

 

"Changes will include extending the viewing range (to support the longer-ranged views achieved in the air) and enhancing performance. They also plan to add weather effects, cloud layers, and new missile types; also, between mission management of maintenance, supplies, and replacements will play a part in the game.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect is the ability to link with M1 Tank Platoon II so gamers can fight cooperative, combined-arms battles with friends on the ground. MicroProse is even kicking around ideas for a third product, a wargame that would let one person act as commander for multiple helicopter pilots and tank commanders (human or AI)."

 

April 12, 2000
Hasbro QA Lead Mark Gutknecht posts on our board concerning Gunship's connectedness with Tank Platoon.

"A patch will be needed to connect to Tank.  I've been tasked with making a list of the "issues" you folks find along with any bugs.  The decision will then be made on just when a patch will be put together and what will be on it. I appreciate your patience."

 

April 20, 2000
I get an email from a M1TP2 player that says he purchased a new MicroProse game and inside was a flyer showing Tank Platoon and Gunship together, and mentioning that the two connect.  There is a graphic of the TP box as well....it's the first time I've seen it.

 

 

Also on this day, Hasbro PR sends out this press release to some web sites regarding Tank Platoon.  They include some screenshots.  From the release:

 

Tank Platoon!® is a fast-paced combat experience where players control the most durable, heavy, powerful battle machines of the 21st century. Massive and forceful weapons of destruction capable of high ground speeds and accurate gunfire, the front-line battle tanks of the major countries command respect and admiration. For the first time ever, this full fighting experience of power and speed is offered with great ease of use, incredible battlefield depth, and fantastic 3-D graphics that will immerse all gamers into the excitement and action of WW III. Additionally, the full battle experience is enhanced with an on-line connection to Gunship!®, the best helicopter sim-action game in the world. Now get full, hands-on excitement fighting combat helicopters and tanks together in the first ever coordinated, on-line experience joining two different fighting platforms from two separate games. 

 

The project of "Tank Platoon!" was cancelled, based to Gunship! engine, but as those shared plenty between the Tank Platoon II they were interchangeable some manners.

 

And some more information here in a interview:

http://www.combatsim.com/printer.php?action=review&id=630&page=1

 

It is sad thing when a upgraded Tank Platoon II / Tank Platoon III aka Tank Platoon! was meant to be release few months after Gunship! but was cancelled... 

 

There really has not been such simulators that allow ground and air players work together. That is what made the DCS: Combined Arms so attractive at first for that to get better, but clearly they (ED) noticed too late that DCS World doesn't really perform in that so well without major redesigns, why they went so low at the licenses that you could get it for a 2.50€ in discount and then they suddenly raised it to current 39.99.... Without really anything done for it. And still waiting the RTS elements and command functions and all to come to it with Dynamic Campaign and all... 

 

One of the interesting part in the above interview was: 

 

Q: In simulations of the depth of these ones, AI is the key to gameplay. What are key areas of improvement for the next generation?

Tim: The improvements over M1 include a major improvement on target and weapon selection. In addition, all units will have realistic limits on target spotting. No more omniscient crews. Almost all the AI functions have been improved, including an intelligent use of terrain, and intelligent wingmen who can act fully independently.

 

Q: I remember a conversation with you last year about use of infantry in M1TP2. You had a great many ideas for enhancing that aspect of gameplay, including modeling tall grass for them to use as cover. What will we see in M1TP3 and Gunship?

Tim: The big problem with infantry in most games is the unrealistic distance they are seen and detected at. We have gone to great lengths to fix this. In addition, they will move and seek cover better than before.

 

 

And 20 years later we have still that same problem almost everywhere.

To fix that requires just admitting one thing, players shouldn't be expecting to spot units on the ground like they do now in DCS.

They should be basically blind to ground units unless the ground units purposely go to reveal themselves to threat.

And it doesn't help that mission designers liberally does place ground units to such ways that they are easy to spot and they are sitting ducks. 

Because there is no intelligence in the AI that would try to keep units alive even a tiny bit.

 

This is something that I feel that only ED should do the AI and all the functions, starting with a individual soldier and up from that where ever individual soldiers are used. Then you can build on that the complex vehicles etc where multiple individual soldiers are grouped inside one vehicle. Where one is the commander and responsible for almost everything. 

 

That is when a major addition to new units would really shine when such AI could be used and then just change the logic in the AI soldiers that what they can do and how to react at various situations or what to try to achieve (like don't put APC rush toward a MBT over open terrain as every vehicle member would know that they are dead on the moment the commander inside MBT commands a fire...), as wasting units just for fun is no way to victory (unless you have millions to waste for little bit a land). 

 

Edit: Years back, like maybe a 5-6 there was hype from the ED about new 3D animations for M1A1 where it was shown accelerating, braking, turning etc. And ED posted to their employee search to have specialists for more information about M1A1 interiors and functions etc. Likely they got attention from the US Army to produce a simulator for them. 

 

It is sad no one likely have any copies of those videos, as they were cool ones. Performing similar things like this:

 

  

Edited March 9, 2021 by Fri13

[Stratos]

Amazing, thanks a lot for the detailed answer. Had a lot of fun in the past with M1 TP2 and Gunship!