Infantry - Combined Arms

[upyr1]

On 5/25/2021 at 12:15 PM, Callsign112 said:

I am assuming by RTS, you mean real-time-shooter. Currently, DCS uses AI infantry only, and I wouldn't argue that they change that. If you read this thread, you will see that I am hoping for an improved AI, not a RTS. The focus should remain on the vehicles (planes/jets/tank...ect) Maps like Normandy and the Channel were made to be driven on, not just flown over. I love the aircraft in DCS World, but it is so much more than just a flight simulator.

First step to improved infantry IMHO would be more weapons- so we can have proper squads

[Callsign112]

I would agree +1000.

 

Believe it or not, the DCS infantry are actually really well done. I know most here probably haven't taken the time to look that close, but I have, and I have to say that I am impressed.

 

A lot of the work there has already been done, but could use an updated logic.

 

Considering that we probably wont see a playable infantry, I don't know how the OP here would feel about a much improved AI infantry, but I personally would really appreciate it. And because we have the ability through the ME and Combined Arms to control the infantry, its not a FPS for sure, but it would be sort of heading in that direction.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I still don't see what your point is. If you want to inform the community about your views on what the definition of a simulator is, then please, start another thread for yourself.

 

Yes, you seem to get that as a digital combat simulator, DCS World includes aircraft.

 

SAM's are a ground force technology that can demonstrate how ground force units are linked to air force units. A carrier is part of naval forces that can also demonstrate how that branch can be linked to air force units in the same way that the Higgins boat connects boats and boots.

 

But at this point, I am not sure where your going with this. Are you answering a question, or trying to ask one because I can't tell anymore.

 

Your discussion is less coherent as we progresses. What am I supposed to gather from your discussion when you post this "The requirement for a game to be a sim isn’t necessary complexity, the simplified FC3 planes are still sims. But it’s gotta be a cockpit view", while the official documentation of the Combined Arms module states this "Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang." 

 

All I can gather from your discussion is that you don't bother to take the time to read the facts to support your comments, and that does nothing but create problems in terms of your contribution to this topic. But again, if you are not interested in contributing to this topic, please find another thread, or start your own.

This thread has run it’s course really. ED has already answered these questions. So yeah if you want to debate what a “sim” is you’ll no doubt find many opinions elsewhere. 

[Callsign112]

Thanks for the heads up, and I will be sure to start another thread to debate just that if I ever feel the urge.

[Aarnoman]

On 5/29/2021 at 1:48 AM, Callsign112 said:

I would agree +1000.

 

Believe it or not, the DCS infantry are actually really well done. I know most here probably haven't taken the time to look that close, but I have, and I have to say that I am impressed.

 

A lot of the work there has already been done, but could use an updated logic.

 

Considering that we probably wont see a playable infantry, I don't know how the OP here would feel about a much improved AI infantry, but I personally would really appreciate it. And because we have the ability through the ME and Combined Arms to control the infantry, its not a FPS for sure, but it would be sort of heading in that direction.

DCS infantry is really well done? I'm sorry, but what? In my experience the infantry we have currently available is anything but. They end up getting stuck in each other half the time, move in a conga line unless specifically micromanaged with multiple waypoints, and do not fight convincingly. Also, the models (apart from that one insurgent model) look straight out of a 2001 video game.

This is coming from using infantry in DCS missions for many years, and they have continously been a source of frustration for me due to the degree of waypoint micromanaging required to make them look like a barely functioning squad.

 

Heck, even something as sensible as embarking/disembarking infantry into a few APC's is nigh impossible in DCS.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Aarnoman

[Tank50us]

58 minutes ago, Aarnoman said:

DCS infantry is really well done? I'm sorry, but what? In my experience the infantry we have currently available is anything but. They end up getting stuck in each other half the time, move in a conga line unless specifically micromanaged with multiple waypoints, and do not fight convincingly. Also, the models (apart from that one insurgent model) look straight out of a 2001 video game.

This is coming from using infantry in DCS missions for many years, and they have continously been a source of frustration for me due to the degree of waypoint micromanaging required to make them look like a barely functioning squad.

 

Heck, even something as sensible as embarking/disembarking infantry into a few APC's is nigh impossible in DCS.

 

 

They look that bad because it's perfectly acceptable to look at through a FLIR pod from 30,000ft, towit, I don't see an issue with that personally. That being said, with the ever increasing focus on helicopter combat, the infantry are getting re-worked and if you saw last weeks newsletter, they did show off some of the new models that are going to be coming soon.

 

As for their behavior, that's because they're right now they're basically very small jeeps in terms of programming. This is something that ED does need to solve, but I think with the new troop models, they'll likely get that treatment soon.

[Callsign112]

8 hours ago, Aarnoman said:

DCS infantry is really well done? I'm sorry, but what? In my experience the infantry we have currently available is anything but. They end up getting stuck in each other half the time, move in a conga line unless specifically micromanaged with multiple waypoints, and do not fight convincingly. Also, the models (apart from that one insurgent model) look straight out of a 2001 video game.

This is coming from using infantry in DCS missions for many years, and they have continously been a source of frustration for me due to the degree of waypoint micromanaging required to make them look like a barely functioning squad.

 

Heck, even something as sensible as embarking/disembarking infantry into a few APC's is nigh impossible in DCS.

 

If you followed the thread, then I think you would understand what I meant by "DCS infantry are actually really well done". I am talking about the models themselves and the limited set of movements/AI logic that they have been given. What is already there though is reasonable. Yes I agree, like almost the entire ground war side of DCS World, the infantry units are in desperate need of an update, but a lot of the work needed to have a usable AI infantry in DCS has already been done, and it has actually been done quite well. Like you, I could barely get an infantry formation to follow simple way points when I first started. Now I am able to do this with a lot less problems, so I don't know if I am doing something different from when I first started using them, or if the AI infantry have seen improvements in their ability to follow a way point?

 

Again go back and read the thread and watch the videos I linked, I am pointing to a lot of the things that you mention in your post above. And I also believe that ED has done a lot more work on infantry then what one might think by simply viewing them in the current mission editor. A while back, I saw an ED produced promotional video for a Combined Arms campaign/mission that demonstrated among other things, infantry units with movements that are currently unavailable in the mission editor. Like infantry going prone for cover as they crawled toward an objective.

 

I agree with the OP that an FPS is likely very doable, but in addition to the fact that ED has announced that this is not part of their plan, I personally think the better way to go anyways would be to keep the focus for players in vehicles(jets/planes/tanks), and add a very capable infantry unit. Instead of requiring an even larger number of players to fill the MP servers, a very capable AI infantry could be used to populate the game world to achieve the desired level of action to build a more immersive experience. And that seems to fit with the stated mission statement of ED.

 

 So while I largely agree with everything you said except for the 2001 video game comment, your last point highlighted in bold is probably the strongest indication that ED needs to revisit the ground war side of DCS with more updates. And there is a long list of things like being able to get in/out of vehicels that could be added so that over a period of several updates, the DCS infantry units would be much more usable.

[Callsign112]

7 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

They look that bad because it's perfectly acceptable to look at through a FLIR pod from 30,000ft, towit, I don't see an issue with that personally. That being said, with the ever increasing focus on helicopter combat, the infantry are getting re-worked and if you saw last weeks newsletter, they did show off some of the new models that are going to be coming soon.

 

As for their behavior, that's because they're right now they're basically very small jeeps in terms of programming. This is something that ED does need to solve, but I think with the new troop models, they'll likely get that treatment soon.

You don't need the level of detail seen in the picture above to look at something on the ground from 30,000ft because that level of detail wouldn't be visible. The only reason I see for that level of detail would be if ED actually intended to deliver on its mission as a digital combat simulator. And I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't want to do that.

 

Regarding AI behavior, its because so little work has been done on it. The behavior of infantry in terms of programed logic is not that much different then the behavior of programed logic in AI aircraft. The logic has to be worked on before we can see a change in its behavior.

[Aarnoman]

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You don't need the level of detail seen in the picture above to look at something on the ground from 30,000ft because that level of detail wouldn't be visible. The only reason I see for that level of detail would be if ED actually intended to deliver on its mission as a digital combat simulator. And I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't want to do that.

 

Regarding AI behavior, its because so little work has been done on it. The behavior of infantry in terms of programed logic is not that much different then the behavior of programed logic in AI aircraft. The logic has to be worked on before we can see a change in its behavior.

In full agreement. The main issue is not the visual quality of ground troops (though I would not be opposed to better looking infantry like in the recent whitepaper), but the lack of logic to detection/movement/attacking/embarking/disembarking.
For one, it would be nice if vehicles by default carried a certain number of troops, that would dismount automatically when appropriate.
Furthermore, as @Callsign112's videos demonstrated, the detection and engagement logic certainly needs more work.

 

However, the constant throwing around of DCS as an FPS just seems silly to me - it misses even the most basic features for this, such as enterable structures. Moreover, the immense map size does not land itself well to an fps either, especially with the limited ground level detail. It would not add anything much of value while taking a significant time and cost investment on the part of developers.

 

However, improved infantry logic/abilities (e.g. some degree of autonomy, appropriate use of stances, automatic embarking/disembarking, etc) with some level of control through combined arms (movement/objective logic) would be more than welcome, would significantly less work c.f. creating an FPS, and would add a significant amount to both combined arms and regular pilot's gameplay.

 

 

[Tank50us]

Ya know, I just had the thought of instead of us controlling the troops, as well, troops, what about giving us a squad level control where we're giving orders to a squad or fire-team in the same vein of "Full Spectrum Warrior". (an interesting title for those have haven't checked it out) If the infantry were given their own ability to move, shoot, take cover, etc, and all we had to do was tell them what we needed them to do (for example secure a building), then we could give them that command, and swap over to the next squad and give them an order. This could also give us the ability to see what they see, and better direct our fire support.

[upyr1]

One of the problems with playable infantry would be the issue of modeling indor combat. Eagle would need to give every building an interior. May be that could be done algorithmically. With AI infantry, where we are driving an APC or IFV Eagle will only have to deal with having the enemy shoot from the windows and dice roles as our grunts go in and clear out a house or bunker. 

[NineLine]

Please keep the discussion on DCS World.

[Callsign112]

16 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Ya know, I just had the thought of instead of us controlling the troops, as well, troops, what about giving us a squad level control where we're giving orders to a squad or fire-team in the same vein of "Full Spectrum Warrior". (an interesting title for those have haven't checked it out) If the infantry were given their own ability to move, shoot, take cover, etc, and all we had to do was tell them what we needed them to do (for example secure a building), then we could give them that command, and swap over to the next squad and give them an order. This could also give us the ability to see what they see, and better direct our fire support.

 

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

One of the problems with playable infantry would be the issue of modeling indor combat. Eagle would need to give every building an interior. May be that could be done algorithmically. With AI infantry, where we are driving an APC or IFV Eagle will only have to deal with having the enemy shoot from the windows and dice roles as our grunts go in and clear out a house or bunker. 

I guess I am not suppose to mention other game titles here, as my previous post was deleted.

 

Sorry, but what I meant to say is that code libraries for complex AI behavior already exist in other games like in the title you mentioned. A more capable AI logic could serve both air and ground force units in DCS to help create a more immersive experience, and the current Combined Arms functionality is well suited for this type of game play.

 

Interior modeling of buildings for ground force combat is not really necessary, as shown in game play footage of other platforms that use advanced AI logic.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 5/30/2021 at 3:51 PM, Callsign112 said:

So while I largely agree with everything you said except for the 2001 video game comment, your last point highlighted in bold is probably the strongest indication that ED needs to revisit the ground war side of DCS with more updates. And there is a long list of things like being able to get in/out of vehicels that could be added so that over a period of several updates, the DCS infantry units would be much more usable.

 

The problem actualy has been the "ED" infantry has a very large limited. The pic only show a quality standard when WW2 assets pack was release, in fact, that infantry has the same animations with the old "LOMAC/FC" and has the same AI and funtionality as a vehicle. ED has making new infantry 3D models to update the old models, but not talk anything about build realistic infantry.

The Super Carrier and the future base ground crew has outside for actual "infantry". That only can help on scripted patch or some AI improvements. Meanwhile, build a realistic infantry (FPS/RTS style) has very complicated and will require contract specialized personal to make them.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Interior modeling of buildings for ground force combat is not really necessary, as shown in game play footage of other platforms that use advanced AI logic.

Combat inside buildings does happen 

[Silver_Dragon]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Combat inside buildings does happen 

Not actully on DCS. that require build RTS/FPS AI style, build MOUT environmet, implement use of roofts, stairs, floors, basements, windows and doors to place units and some kind of assault / defense tactics to AI units.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Not actully on DCS. that require build RTS/FPS AI style, build MOUT environmet, implement use of roofts, stairs, floors, basements, windows and doors to place units and some kind of assault / defense tactics to AI units.

 

 

Not only that it would require the buildings all be remodeled to have full interiors and furnishings, and then the existing maps would have to be updated to include those structures. This plus the programming isn't technically impossible, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut it would be a lengthy project to say the least. Again, technically doable, but it would be very time consuming to do for DCS by itself in the current state. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done btw, after all troops ducking in and out of buildings is a thing helicopters have to worry about in the real world, but I am saying it's something that would take a very long time to do, and those that want it two weeks from now will be lucky if they see it in two years.

[Callsign112]

12 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

The problem actualy has been the "ED" infantry has a very large limited. The pic only show a quality standard when WW2 assets pack was release, in fact, that infantry has the same animations with the old "LOMAC/FC" and has the same AI and funtionality as a vehicle. ED has making new infantry 3D models to update the old models, but not talk anything about build realistic infantry.

The Super Carrier and the future base ground crew has outside for actual "infantry". That only can help on scripted patch or some AI improvements. Meanwhile, build a realistic infantry (FPS/RTS style) has very complicated and will require contract specialized personal to make them.

 

@Silver_Dragon, I realize the shortcomings of the current infantry units. That is why I am pointing to them in a wish list thread, so that they might be addressed.

 

The various wish list threads are filled with planes/jets/boats/ships/aircraft carriers/radar systems/missile systems... that ED has not publicly stated they are working on. They are simply suggestions from the community. It is almost as if you are following me around to tell me that what I posted in a wish list thread is not a valid wish!

 

The current infantry units do have some logic built-in that allows them to move and attack. The work that has gone into them so far is not really visible from the air as much as it is visible to a player who is watching the action from a vehicle in first person view, which is a stated feature of Combined Arms.

 

Some of the discussion here is in answer to questions raised by other posters regarding the feasibility of even doing this kind of work. Several posters have indicated that this type of work is too big of an ask as it can't be done. But there are in fact numerous examples of games that show off the AI behavior being discussed.

 

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Combat inside buildings does happen 

Of course it does, but I am just pointing out that it is not necessary. As in titles like "Full Spectrum Warrior", and "Men of War Assault squad", or even in FPS like "Battle Field", very little game play takes place inside buildings. The maps in DCS in their current state are more than capable of supporting game play with improved AI logic. In the case of aerial combat, improved AI logic would obviously be used for the aircraft real pilots would engage. But the biggest reason I suggested it is not necessary is for all the reasons listed in the quoted text below. 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Not actully on DCS. that require build RTS/FPS AI style, build MOUT environmet, implement use of roofts, stairs, floors, basements, windows and doors to place units and some kind of assault / defense tactics to AI units.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Callsign112

[Callsign112]

54 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Not only that it would require the buildings all be remodeled to have full interiors and furnishings, and then the existing maps would have to be updated to include those structures. This plus the programming isn't technically impossible, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut it would be a lengthy project to say the least. Again, technically doable, but it would be very time consuming to do for DCS by itself in the current state. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done btw, after all troops ducking in and out of buildings is a thing helicopters have to worry about in the real world, but I am saying it's something that would take a very long time to do, and those that want it two weeks from now will be lucky if they see it in two years.

It would be great if what we post in wish list threads would be added to DCS world within a couple of weeks, but I doubt anyone sees that as a reasonable expectation.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

@Silver_Dragon, I realize the shortcomings of the current infantry units. That is why I am pointing to them in a wish list thread, so that they might be addressed.

 

The various wish list threads are filled with planes/jets/boats/ships/aircraft carriers/radar systems/missile systems... that ED has not publicly stated they are working on. They are simply suggestions from the community. It is almost as if you are following me around to tell me that what I posted in a wish list thread is not a valid wish!

 

The current infantry units do have some logic built-in that allows them to move and attack. The work that has gone into them so far is not really visible from the air as much as it is visible to a player who is watching the action from a vehicle in first person view, which is a stated feature of Combined Arms.

 

Some of the discussion here is in answer to questions raised by other posters regarding the feasibility of even doing this kind of work. Several posters have indicated that this type of work is too big of an ask as it can't be done. But there are in fact numerous examples of games that show off the AI behavior being discussed.

 

Of course it does, but I am just pointing out that it is not necessary. As in titles like "Full Spectrum Warrior", and "Men of War Assault squad", or even in FPS like "Battle Field", very little game play takes place inside buildings. The maps in DCS in their current state are more than capable of supporting game play with improved AI logic. In the case of aerial combat, improved AI logic would obviously be used for the aircraft real pilots would engage. But the biggest reason I suggested it is not necessary is for all the reasons listed in the quoted text below. 

 

 

 

Remember build that level of infanty will require a dedicated team, That is not a easy task. I have the same interest to ED make realistic infantry.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

even in FPS like "Battle Field", very little game play takes place inside buildings.

Clearly you don’t play Battlefield… A great amount of the action that game utilizes the building interiors. An FPS game without this aspect would be ridiculous. 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Of course it does, but I am just pointing out that it is not necessary. As in other games very little game play takes place inside buildings. The maps in DCS in their current state are more than capable of supporting game play with improved AI logic. In the case of aerial combat, improved AI logic would obviously be used for the aircraft real pilots would engage. But the biggest reason I suggested it is not necessary is for all the reasons listed in the quoted text below. 

 

I've played at least one of the games you mention and in an earlier post (I removed the titles) good recommendation BTW- while playing the game there a few missions where I'm thinking it would be nice if I could go into a building and snipe the dude hiding behind the trash dumpster. Anyhow my point had been without modeling interiors you have eliminated a defining trait of MOUT and reduced  realism since you will be left with 2 dimensional tactics. This would work out in the open. As I stated earlier I think we would be better off with improved AI and having windows and external doors to the buildings 

Edited June 1, 2021 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Of course it does, but I am just pointing out that it is not necessary. … very little game play takes place inside buildings.

All infantry combat in the periods depicted here utilize buildings and structures for cover and concealment, observation etc. It would be a significant challenge for DCS to incorporate that level of detail into its maps. But it’s pretty vital for giving infantry an enhanced role. So this issue is rather a stumbling block in DCS. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Northstar98]

For buildings, why do you need to do any more than floors and windows, and maybe walls?

 

As for urban and rural environments - this is purely a mission editing issue.

 

That said, I still think it would be better if we had a CA orientated map, with very high terrain detail, high resolution objects and building with limited interiors on maybe a map that was a lot smaller (say 50x50km or something), suitable for CA, but also leaving enough room for helicopters.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

For buildings, why do you need to do any more than floors and windows, and maybe walls?

AFAIK that’s what we have now. Infantry can be in or on top of buildings. But there can’t be detailed combat within or between structures, can there?

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

That said, I still think it would be better if we had a CA orientated map, with very high terrain detail, high resolution objects and building with limited interiors on maybe a map that was a lot smaller (say 50x50km or something), suitable for CA, but also leaving enough room for helicopters.

That’s makes sense. A detailed ground combat sim would need its own map. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by SharpeXB