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]

If Eagle did Combined Arms II which involved a major overhaul of the ground units and AI in DCS core and CA

would you be interested

Edited August 3, 2021 by upyr1

[MAXsenna]

If Eagle did Combined Arms II which involved a major overhaul of the ground units and updating CA would you be interested

Yes! Absolutely!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Yes! Absolutely!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

please vote it won't make a differnce just look cool 

[Steel Jaw]

Nope who even uses it?

[Exorcet]

I'm often surprised when I see some of the CA videos on youtube. A few people have put a lot of effort into making good content for the modules despite its short comings. Improvements to CA would be more than welcome for a variety of reasons but I think what CA needs more than an expansion is fixes to the core content. What would be the point of CA 1 if CA 2 had all the ground improvements locked behind it? Also, what would you do if you didn't own any CA modules? Improved ground AI needs to be part of the DCS core.

[upyr1]

3 minutes ago, Mower said:

Nope who even uses it?

I would if VR worked

 

[upyr1]

Just now, Exorcet said:

I'm often surprised when I see some of the CA videos on youtube. A few people have put a lot of effort into making good content for the modules despite its short comings. Improvements to CA would be more than welcome for a variety of reasons but I think what CA needs more than an expansion is fixes to the core content. What would be the point of CA 1 if CA 2 had all the ground improvements locked behind it? Also, what would you do if you didn't own any CA modules? Improved ground AI needs to be part of the DCS core.

I'm mot saying all the improvements to ground units should be available only to folks with CA2, rather that the CA 2 simply makes an overhaul of the ground units and anything that could potientally prevent online play going to DCS core

[Wdigman]

Can combined arms be improved? Yes absolutely!!

 

This is probably the third or fourth thread addressing this? What changes are you proposing here?

 

So far I have read...

 

Making all vehicles derivable with realistic interiors, including gunner/turret positions. I wonder how that will work on ships/ Subs.

 

Making DCS more like a First person shooter COD or Arma ( I never played Arma so not sure what I am talking about.)

 

DCS with payable modules such as M1 Abrams (fully modeled interior and systems like the planes)

 

There are probably others I am missing, So what does this survey propose?

 

I do spend time in DCS, simple missions like escorting a supply convoy, or just blowing stuff up. Nothing major like an entire battle front, more grand theft auto than anything serious,  just for fun. I even use an Xbox controller in third person view to drive the vehicles. Unfortunately you cant use the turret unless your first person in the machine. (Bug?)

 

I don't feel like you can command any large armor movements efficiently given the current interface. How many times do I discover that a group of assets is under attack by chance no notification that a group is under fire, or direction of where the fire is coming from.  The AI has no effective defensive tactics. Like popping smoke when an enemy is shooting at you? How do I take command of naval assets, and set up formations, sub hunting, etc?

 

I feel that a good command interface for DCS would be something like HARPOON. However since that game is decades old the potential to make DCS way better is a reality. They have inventories for warehouses and airfields! DCS has the potential to simulate strategic and logistical elements of the battlefield as well as front line elements. Yet another thread mentioned the implementation of ELINT and EW in DCS. Eagle could make something that is a learning asset at West Point.

 

Would I buy such a module. (HARPOON interface and functionality) 

Yes.

 

Would I buy each Tank or APC as a separate more immersive asset?

(Maybe) Probably not every Tank or APC but talk to me what does that offer vs the standard Combined arms models. We all have our favorites after all.

 

First Person Shooter (FPS)

I don't know, (Probably not) you wont be able to clear buildings given the current environment (LOD of current buildings in game) and I don't think they should, DCS is not that game. I could be fun to be a soldier fighting block to block clearing a path or defending an urban area but again the Level of detail will be a constant discussion; this isn't Call of Duty after all.

 

My 2 cents

[MAXsenna]

please vote it won't make a differnce just look cool 

Vote? If this is a pull, I guess it doesn't show up in Tapatalk. I'll open in a browser.
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[cfrag]

Let me be frank - CA in its current form is a stain on ED's reputation: it looks like the summer project of a sullen intern; haphazardly slapped together with counter-intuitive integration, shoddy (really bad) physics, cheap visuals, inaccessible functionality and no VR support. It should never have progressed beyond internal testing, and shame on the project managers who green-lit production.

 

That being said, I'd be open (and prepared to pay) for 'real' DCS-level ground vehicle modules, provided ED adds a good 'ground engine'. This means that instead of CA's approach to let us access some vehicles in a crummy way, I want a single vehicle, hi-quality approach: I'm prepared to pay per-vehicle (e.g. a Hummer, a Leo II, or Marder) -- provided their physics engine and sim fidelity is on par with that of air frames (this requires a new, correct implementation of ground physics, which currently is rudimentary at best).

 

So, no, I don't want a CA II. I want high-quality ground modules on par with (perhaps FC3-level fidelity) airframes. And I have my wallet right here to back this up  

 

Anything less - let it go. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by cfrag

[sirrah]

Ok, this'll probably make me very unpopular and I may even have to move to a safehouse after this, but here it goes...

 

"In my opinion CA should be dropped entirely"

 

*runs for cover, expecting incoming flak* 

 

 

 

There's a few reasons why I personally think that CA never had and never really will have a proper future within DCS. Here's a few (in random order):

• There are other (or is one other) "simulator" out there that does a better job on simulating a ground war. As for 2 decades their main focus has been ground war simulation, it will be very hard (maybe even impossible) for ED to compete with them. Resulting in ED having to invest massively in order to at least get to the same level of realism and offering a similarly complete experience. Given the age of this other game/sim and its ongoing popularity, even after all those years, I would be surprised if this developer won't release a successor product somewhere in the upcoming few years.
• In line with my previous point, most people now come to DCS for a unique flight simulation experience not to be found anywhere else. I think and hope this will never change and focus will always stay on (combat) flight simulation. I really expect that, moving further from flight simulation to a general combat simulation (more focus on being able to drive vehicles and man ships), will happen to the expense of the flight simulation part. Most probably resulting eventually in a half baked "simulation". ED recently shared with us how much time it takes to create a new ground unit and, well in my line of work it's very hard to find good/experience employees, I would be surprised if this were any different in the software development sector. 
• Current DCS platform/world is not really fit for driving vehicles. Not just because the "poor graphics" and the lack of details (tracks, various soils, lack of ditches and small natural obstructions such as rocks, to name a few), but also roads and elevation changes that are way too angular to realistically drive over (for instance, we all know about the immensely steep ramps at some bridges). And all this lack of detail is logical, because we also want to fly over these areas at mach 1 in full fidelity aircraft.

  (in all the above text please add a few "I think", "personally" and "in my opinion" quotes . In extend to the above, I do agree with the thread title that it's mandatory that ground/sea units AI is improved massively.)

 

 

Luckily for all those that like the idea of driving (and at some point maybe even walk) over the battlefield, I expect that DCS will further develop CA and yes, maybe resulting in CA 2 at some point. Who knows. ED chose the title "Digital Combat Simulation" so they probably see a good market in more than solely a Combat Flightsimulator alone.

If ED does decide to further develop CA, I'd certainly hope they'd start with SAM and AAA units first, as these units would imo be the most useful to have operated by human intelligence.

Edited August 3, 2021 by sirrah

[Lace]

The way I look at it there are two ways to develop the CA element to DCS:

 

1. Focus on the battlefield commander role.  Have units contactable by radio, control movement, arcs of fire, ROE, resupply etc. played from more of a 2D map type interface.  This would expand the possibilities of the dynamic campaign engine, and stay true to the DCS rather than DFS moniker.  We could massively expand the number of ground and sea units without having to worry about modelling driving stations or gunner positions.
2. Treat non-flying units as modules in their own right.  Fully modelled and controllable accurate representations of specific units, in the same way they treat aircraft.  Obviously the main problem here is the glacially slow development time of even AI units, never mind FF modules.  Especially since DCS covers such a wide time period. (for reference, the C:MO database covers 3750 sea units and 2500 ground units within the 1950-2020+ time period, DCS would also have to add WWII to that!).  To cover such a breadth of units to the level we have come to expect from ED would take an inordinate amount of time.  Even 1% of that figure is over 60 modules.  Without focussing on a narrow specific conflict or time period I just don't see that as achievable.

Given those two approaches, I think only number one is a viable option.  It allows strategic and tactical control of the battlefield, and is achievable before the year 2100.

[Tank50us]

I think one of the best ways to improve CA, particularly with the infantry, is to make it when you put down a unit, it's actually putting down a squad sized element that is based around the squad leader. Each member of the unit is effectively 'tethered' to the SL, and will move where they do. To avoid issues, each member of the unit also has its own ability to path-find, but, as the squad leader is where the icon would be, you wouldn't have any direct control over the individual units within the squad.

 

The advantage to this is that you can more accurately represent infantry units both in terms of looks and function. For example, if you have a US rifle squad, you'll have about 6 guys with M16s, 2 with LMGs, and the Squad leader with an M4. If you give them an order to attack something that's on the edge of their range, they'll start shooting at it, but will automatically close in to get a more optimal range, all the while moving and shooting as they approach (laying down covering fire basically).

 

An Anti-Air team on the other hand would consist of the SL, two rifleman, and two MANPADS, an Anti-Tank team would be the same size, but with ATGM Launchers instead of MANPADS, and so on.

 

Done right, this could also have a level of customization added. You could plunk down the SL, and in the correct tab for the unit (maybe the loadout tab?) you can select how many troops are in his squad, what each member has for a weapon, and other options.

 

Just my two cents.

[Mars Exulte]

 They're already intending to expand/improve CA, beyond that this is beating a dead horse.

[cfrag]

12 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 They're already intending to expand/improve CA, beyond that this is beating a dead horse.

 

Actually, IMHO expanding CA already is cruelly beating a dead horse, but I digress.

[MAXsenna]

Let me be frank - CA in its current form is a stain on ED's reputation: it looks like the summer project of a sullen intern; haphazardly slapped together with counter-intuitive integration, shoddy (really bad) physics, cheap visuals, inaccessible functionality and no VR support. It should never have progressed beyond internal testing, and shame on the project managers who green-lit production.
 
That being said, I'd be open (and prepared to pay) for 'real' DCS-level ground vehicle modules, provided ED adds a good 'ground engine'. This means that instead of CA's approach to let us access some vehicles in a crummy way, I want a single vehicle, hi-quality approach: I'm prepared to pay per-vehicle (e.g. a Hummer, a Leo II, or Marder) -- provided their physics engine and sim fidelity is on par with that of air frames (this requires a new, correct implementation of ground physics, which currently is rudimentary at best).
 
So, no, I don't want a CA II. I want high-quality ground modules on par with (perhaps FC3-level fidelity) airframes. And I have my wallet right here to back this up  
 
Anything less - let it go. 

Costs a few beer in a sale though. In my opinion it suffers mostly from lacking ordinary "Windows/standard RTS commands" one would expect, (ME too), and the "non existing" AI already present in the core. If they fix AI and the ground war somewhat it should be a lot of fun.
I also think it suffers from how it originally came to be, and yeah, it was probably rushed into DCS for ordinary gamers.
VR will come, but it wasn't really a thing when CA was released, or was it?
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

The way I look at it there are two ways to develop the CA element to DCS:
 

1. Focus on the battlefield commander role.  Have units contactable by radio, control movement, arcs of fire, ROE, resupply etc. played from more of a 2D map type interface.  This would expand the possibilities of the dynamic campaign engine, and stay true to the DCS rather than DFS moniker.  We could massively expand the number of ground and sea units without having to worry about modelling driving stations or gunner positions.
2. Treat non-flying units as modules in their own right.  Fully modelled and controllable accurate representations of specific units, in the same way they treat aircraft.  Obviously the main problem here is the glacially slow development time of even AI units, never mind FF modules.  Especially since DCS covers such a wide time period. (for reference, the C:MO database covers 3750 sea units and 2500 ground units within the 1950-2020+ time period, DCS would also have to add WWII to that!).  To cover such a breadth of units to the level we have come to expect from ED would take an inordinate amount of time.  Even 1% of that figure is over 60 modules.  Without focussing on a narrow specific conflict or time period I just don't see that as achievable.

Given those two approaches, I think only number one is a viable option.  It allows strategic and tactical control of the battlefield, and is achievable before the year 2100.

I agree. I want CA for the command element. Not drive around shooting. That is more fun elsewhere.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[cfrag]

18 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I want CA for the command element. 

 

Now that is indeed something I can get completely behind. Drop that half-baked 'take command of unit and drive it around'. Instead allow commander(s) to issue orders (attack, move, guard, escort, defend) to groups that they have been given authority over, give them markers that are visible to everyone on their side (we are already half way there, needs much better interface) and the ability to communicate new waypoints to player pilots. That would really be something worthwhile. Make it scriptable, and we are in heaven  (oh, and while we are at it, why not give us a half-step: player ATC, but I'm not going to hijack this thread)

 

[MAXsenna]

 
Now that is indeed something I can get completely behind. Drop that half-baked 'take command of unit and drive it around'. Instead allow commander(s) to issue orders (attack, move, guard, escort, defend) to groups that they have been given authority over, give them markers that are visible to everyone on their side (we are already half way there, needs much better interface) and the ability to communicate new waypoints to player pilots. That would really be something worthwhile. Make it scriptable, and we are in heaven  (oh, and while we are at it, why not give us a half-step: player ATC, but I'm not going to hijack this thread)
 

Yes, exactly how I envision what CA should be about. Combined Arms. Not tank simulator. Those could be standalone modules for all I care.
But it can be handy to jump in a scout vehicle once in a while.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Lace]

Just now, cfrag said:

 

Now that is indeed something I can get completely behind. Drop that half-baked 'take command of unit and drive it around'. Instead allow commander(s) to issue orders (attack, move, guard, escort, defend) to groups that they have been given authority over, give them markers that are visible to everyone on their side (we are already half way there, needs much better interface) and the ability to communicate new waypoints to player pilots. That would really be something worthwhile. Make it scriptable, and we are in heaven  (oh, and while we are at it, why not give us a half-step: player ATC, but I'm not going to hijack this thread)

 

 

With real radio comms.  Accounting for path propagation, atmospherics, interference, jamming and the physical location of the battlefield commander on the map.  Units move out of range or behind a hill and you lose direct control, and no longer receive contact reports on enemy positions.

[Silver_Dragon]

16 minutes ago, Lace said:

 

With real radio comms.  Accounting for path propagation, atmospherics, interference, jamming and the physical location of the battlefield commander on the map.  Units move out of range or behind a hill and you lose direct control, and no longer receive contact reports on enemy positions.

 

Real radio comms has on progress by ED with own communication system on the "core".
 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Lace said:

The way I look at it there are two ways to develop the CA element to DCS:

 

1. Focus on the battlefield commander role.  Have units contactable by radio, control movement, arcs of fire, ROE, resupply etc. played from more of a 2D map type interface.  This would expand the possibilities of the dynamic campaign engine, and stay true to the DCS rather than DFS moniker.  We could massively expand the number of ground and sea units without having to worry about modelling driving stations or gunner positions.
2. Treat non-flying units as modules in their own right.  Fully modelled and controllable accurate representations of specific units, in the same way they treat aircraft.  Obviously the main problem here is the glacially slow development time of even AI units, never mind FF modules.  Especially since DCS covers such a wide time period. (for reference, the C:MO database covers 3750 sea units and 2500 ground units within the 1950-2020+ time period, DCS would also have to add WWII to that!).  To cover such a breadth of units to the level we have come to expect from ED would take an inordinate amount of time.  Even 1% of that figure is over 60 modules.  Without focussing on a narrow specific conflict or time period I just don't see that as achievable.

Given those two approaches, I think only number one is a viable option.  It allows strategic and tactical control of the battlefield, and is achievable before the year 2100.

While I do agree that the focus should be number 1, I would still like to have low fidelity drivable units. I always think of combined arms as a hybbrid RTS and flaming cliffs with tanks

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

Let me be frank - CA in its current form is a stain on ED's reputation: it looks like the summer project of a sullen intern; haphazardly slapped together with counter-intuitive integration, shoddy (really bad) physics, cheap visuals, inaccessible functionality and no VR support. It should never have progressed beyond internal testing, and shame on the project managers who green-lit production.

 

That being said, I'd be open (and prepared to pay) for 'real' DCS-level ground vehicle modules, provided ED adds a good 'ground engine'. This means that instead of CA's approach to let us access some vehicles in a crummy way, I want a single vehicle, hi-quality approach: I'm prepared to pay per-vehicle (e.g. a Hummer, a Leo II, or Marder) -- provided their physics engine and sim fidelity is on par with that of air frames (this requires a new, correct implementation of ground physics, which currently is rudimentary at best).

 

So, no, I don't want a CA II. I want high-quality ground modules on par with (perhaps FC3-level fidelity) airframes. And I have my wallet right here to back this up  

 

Anything less - let it go. 

 

What if the focus is on the strategy element?

Edited August 3, 2021 by upyr1

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 They're already intending to expand/improve CA, beyond that this is beating a dead horse.

I'd like to see the improvements 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I think one of the best ways to improve CA, particularly with the infantry, is to make it when you put down a unit, it's actually putting down a squad sized element that is based around the squad leader. Each member of the unit is effectively 'tethered' to the SL, and will move where they do. To avoid issues, each member of the unit also has its own ability to path-find, but, as the squad leader is where the icon would be, you wouldn't have any direct control over the individual units within the squad.

 

The advantage to this is that you can more accurately represent infantry units both in terms of looks and function. For example, if you have a US rifle squad, you'll have about 6 guys with M16s, 2 with LMGs, and the Squad leader with an M4. If you give them an order to attack something that's on the edge of their range, they'll start shooting at it, but will automatically close in to get a more optimal range, all the while moving and shooting as they approach (laying down covering fire basically).

 

An Anti-Air team on the other hand would consist of the SL, two rifleman, and two MANPADS, an Anti-Tank team would be the same size, but with ATGM Launchers instead of MANPADS, and so on.

 

Done right, this could also have a level of customization added. You could plunk down the SL, and in the correct tab for the unit (maybe the loadout tab?) you can select how many troops are in his squad, what each member has for a weapon, and other options.

 

Just my two cents.

I'd love to see the template system change, we could have a template editor where we build unit tables, then on the mission editor we get a drop down for unit size

[cfrag]

16 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

What if the focus is on the strategy element?

 

I'd be really, really happy. 

[Callsign112]

10 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I would if VR worked

 

I do, but then again... I don't have VR.