would you be interested in combined Arms II which involved a major overhaul of the ground units and AI in DCS core and CA

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, 3WA said:

If you don't do FPS, you will lose 95% of the people who would buy a game like this.

That's probably true, considering the amount of people who would like the ability to play as a downed pilot this could be added to DCS core. 

[upyr1]

On 8/7/2021 at 5:48 PM, Callsign112 said:

I thought I would offer my take on what an updated/improved Combined Arms might look like.

 

To start, some have mentioned that the F10 map is a poor interface for CA. Like the knee-board map used by pilots, I think the F10 map is the perfect interface for CA because its what a commander would want to use to get an overview of how the mission is progressing, and where each unit is. As an added feature, it might be nice to play around with the idea of adding red/blue markers to show possible enemy strong points/positions, and red/blue arrows to show unit movements as a possible feature, but I think the map interface in CA makes a lot of sense to me.

 

It might also be useful to be able to add more units in CA without having to go back out to the mission editor.

 

Regarding naval assets, TBH I have never used CA for naval units. I usually just place the desired ships and add the way points I want in the mission editor before starting the mission. But my understanding from the discussion here is that we cannot control ships with CA. If this is true, then the next CA update should include this most basic of features. We should at least be able to select a ship/group of ships and either give them a way point, or a unit to attack. I am not talking about adding detail to the ships, viewing stations, or the ability to manually fire the weapons systems from the gunners seat, but simply controlling naval assets should be a basic feature included with CA just like we can control ground vehicles. If we are currently not able to control ships, I would encourage the OP to submit it as a requested feature on the appropriate wish list thread.

 

I would also like to see improved unit selection in CA. As already discussed, this is something I feel would really help improve CA. For units that are grouped, it would be useful if there was a way to quickly identify the primary unit. This could easily be done by using a different color for the primary unit icon, or a symbol (like a star for example) attached to the primary unit icon. And if the primary unit gets destroyed/killed, the next instance of that unit would automatically be reassigned as the primary unit. 

 

I would also like to see improved AI infantry movement. If infantry would be able to go prone/crouch when being fired at, and then go from prone/crouching, back to standing to return fire while advancing to their way point, it would really help to add realism to the battle field. A group of 10 soldiers that are staggered out and crouching/standing randomly as the group advances towards their way point would be a huge improvement.

 

We need more improvements to AI infantry logic. I incorrectly stated that AI infantry have about a 90 degree field of view. I think they have a 360 degree field of view, but its more like if an enemy unit gets behind them, it breaks any logic connected to the infantry unit. The linked video attempts to show different scenarios and how the AI infantry respond. At 1:20 in the time line, you see an AI infantry detect and turn around as an enemy approaches from behind, but once the enemy unit gets behind the infantry unit it looses its ability to attack. 

 

 

As mentioned regarding grouped units, if one, or some of the units in a group loose their way point, the whole group gets scrambled. I try to demonstrate this in two different scenarios in the linked video below. In the first scenario, you see a unit facing the wrong way in a field that seems to have lost its way point for some reason. This affects all the other units in the group as they get slower and slower the further away they get from the lost unit, and will eventually come to a stop about half way through their route. In the second scenario, I hide the British infantry behind a tree so that the German soldiers advance further along their route before detecting it. The result is the same, but the German soldiers almost make it to the way point before grinding to a halt. If infantry are not placed in the mission editor as a group, but instead are placed as individual units with their own way point, the logic is more robust, and each unit has a much higher chance of making to its way point.  

 

 

 

Later they could add different types of infantry (AT, heavy MG, MG), the ability to form groups with more than one type of infantry, the ability to mount and dismount vehicles, and differentiate between a vehicles health and the health of the soldiers inside it.

 

Currently we assign a vehicle unit as JTAC where we can make it invisible if we want. But we can also make the JTAC visible and vulnerable to make it more challenging. It would add another layer of difficulty to the SIM if infantry that were visible and vulnerable in a Humvee assigned as JTAC had to dismount to get closer in order to lase their target.

 

But all of the additions/updates suggested could be added to the current CA without changing its core. It is for ED to decide how much they want to promote CA and how much they want to make it that must buy item, but CA could be such a fundamental part of the digital combat simulator that it is what you buy after downloading DCS World to get started. 

 

It's amusing watching the American infantry operate a non-extant bolt. They need to get that fixed. I figure a lot of the recommendations  could be done to CA as it is now. The main reason for asking Combined Arms II, was basically that it would get Eagle to see some potential profit in doing the overhaul. Same with Fleet Ops. 

[Callsign112]

On 8/11/2021 at 12:20 AM, 3WA said:

If you don't do FPS, you will lose 95% of the people who would buy a game like this.

That might be for people looking specifically for an FPS, but take the people that are already here for example. By improving the ground war side of DCS, there is a good chance that most of the pilots who also enjoy ground/naval battles will spend more time using it. Then there are bound to be people that will find/hear of DCS because of the exciting things happening to its ground/naval capabilities, and once here will discover the air side and enjoy it. 

[Callsign112]

On 8/11/2021 at 12:57 AM, upyr1 said:

It's amusing watching the American infantry operate a non-extant bolt. They need to get that fixed. I figure a lot of the recommendations  could be done to CA as it is now. The main reason for asking Combined Arms II, was basically that it would get Eagle to see some potential profit in doing the overhaul. Same with Fleet Ops. 

And I think your suggestion is a good one. Give the people that already have CA, or the WWII Assets pack a discount, and it should be all good. They have done it with other modules like the A10 for example.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

And I think your suggestion is a good one. Give the people that already have CA, or the WWII Assets pack a discount, and it should be all good. They have done it with other modules like the A10 for example.

I am hoping that will happen as well. It is important to remember that as long as eagle doesn't offer some sort of subscription, the only way they make money is by releasing modules. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by upyr1

[Callsign112]

I am assuming you meant to say the only way they make money is by releasing modules. But yeah, CA has sooooo much potential in terms of being able to add how and what we use the SIM for. But your right, the bottom line is they will have to spend time refining CA and the assets involved if they want to accelerate interest.

 

And I wouldn't mind if it turned into an FPS, but I see two things that make it a non issue at least for now. The first being that anyone looking for just an FPS isn't looking at DCS so there is nothing really gained, or lost. And the second point, I really don't think it is the best way forward, at least not at the beginning. Take any FPS game that incorporates a combined arms concept, and it is a complete fail unless the server is really populated. Using AI infantry reduces the number of real players needed to make exciting matches, and it could be scaled to fill in the action/battle field as needed to produce the most exciting experience for real players in high fidelity vehicles. That is my take.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

I am assuming you meant to say the only way they make money is by releasing modules. But yeah, CA has sooooo much potential in terms of being able to add how and what we use the SIM for. But your right, the bottom line is they will have to spend time refining CA and the assets involved if they want to accelerate interest.

 

And I wouldn't mind if it turned into an FPS, but I see two things that make it a non issue at least for now. The first being that anyone looking for just an FPS isn't looking at DCS so there is nothing really gained, or lost. And the second point, I really don't think it is the best way forward, at least not at the beginning. Take any FPS game that incorporates a combined arms concept, and it is a complete fail unless the server is really populated. Using AI infantry reduces the number of real players needed to make exciting matches, and it could be scaled to fill in the action/battle field as needed to produce the most exciting experience for real players in high fidelity vehicles. That is my take.

typing on cold meds. I do agree it isn't important to have playable infantry right now.  but that is something that needs to be planned.

[SparxOne]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I do agree it isn't important to have playable infantry right now.  but that is something that needs to be planned.

 

To me that is something everyone should keep in mind for a few years at least. I've seen it too many times the people wanting infantry in DCS. Infantry as much as it sounds cool to have them playable will certainly not be as fun and well established in a world and maps like the ones we have here in DCS. ED i'm almost certain has no ressources, money and time to invest in creating a properly fleshed out infantry gameplay in the world we currently have (They arn't even doing it for the already existing CA, as in develop it further, make it even better).

 

I feel like it's just unrealistic to think ED will bring us some infantry gameplay anytime before a good 10 years time, and even with that, i'd be willing to bet it would still be short (Take into account a FF aircraft takes them as we've seen with the F-18/16/A-10, several years to complete, add to that all the other work they have on the side, Dynamic campaign engine, Vulcan, new Weather, AI, etc etc), infantry and anything ground related clearly isn't their focus, and that's nothing new to anyone who's been playing DCS for years. 

 

Yes the dream of some is there, and i can understand it, wouldn't it be insane to have infantry, vehicle, sea and air warfare all simulated in one world all together fighting in conjuction ? Of coarse it would. But back to reality, the priority in my opinion would be first of all to spend a bit of time and ressources upgrading what we currently have, CA as a whole. So many interesting remarks have been made, interesting ideas that sound feasible in terms of addition to CA, let them start there already before dreaming of infantry.

 

I'd be so happy as a start to see them further develop the ground warfare and allow interesting usage of the ground vehicles in conjuction with all the boys flying above, just those 2 playing along side would already be such a fun element to DCS world !

I need to come back to something i said somewhere in this thread already, seeing how the tank gameplay from IL2 looks and feels like on their side, why not let ED start towards something similar ? No need for them to go fully indepth with tanks inside modeling, 100% proper physics etc, but something less arcady from what we have with the added improvement of some RTS element to all of the ground warfare would already be awesome. Literally just doing something to CA to give players an incentive of playing it when let's say they get shot down after a 30 minutes flight, or heck, just an incentive for anyone actually just enjoying ground warfare for a change of flying.

 

I'd be very much willing once in a while after a session of flying to grab a vehicle of choice and go about joining the fight on the ground with other players, or even AI's if they were actually made to attack objectives and just have a purpose different from the always static ones we see throughout the majority of servers. And saying "once in a while" is putting it soft as i'm sure i'd be spending quite some time doing all that if it were made interesting enough, fun, immersive to a minimum and just easily accessible in terms of gameplay.

[3WA]

On 8/12/2021 at 7:53 AM, Callsign112 said:

That might be for people looking specifically for an FPS, but take the people that are already here for example. By improving the ground war side of DCS, there is a good chance that most of the pilots who also enjoy ground/naval battles will spend more time using it. Then there are bound to be people that will find/hear of DCS because of the exciting things happening to its ground/naval capabilities, and once here will discover the air side and enjoy it. 

Even if the FPS players don't want to learn to fly or drive real armor, they would still enjoy the challenge of a realistic battlefield.  As long as they were given infantry defenses against armor, like LAW, METIS, and Javelin.  Also AA like Igla and Stinger.  At proportionate squad and platoon levels, of course.  This was how it was in the UT mod Infiltration that I used to play.  We had a map where F-16's were coming in and doing bombing runs on us as we attempted to secure a package in the open.  There were caves nearby, so we had to listen for the sound of jets, and seek cover immediately, or we were toast for sure.  While not very realistic, Battlefield seems to be going this route, where you can attack infantry FPS with tanks and aircraft.

I used to play Crysis, and it was an INTENSE experience when people saved enough points to start buying aircraft.

Edited August 13, 2021 by 3WA

[3WA]

On 8/12/2021 at 4:37 PM, upyr1 said:

I do agree it isn't important to have playable infantry right now.  but that is something that needs to be planned.

Yeah, a few realistic vehicle modules should probably come first, so the team isn't overwhelmed.