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

[SparxOne]

Just finished reading through the entire thread (Started yesterday night but went to bed halfway through, i therefore don't remember each and every detail everyone said, mind me  )

Anyway, CA has been since the day i bought it a very special module, i feel like it is very much a hidden jewel that has such a potential to unleash if it was further developped. If i may use a metaphore here, CA is like an unpolished diamond waiting for it to get polished and have its value increased with it.

 

5 hours ago, Harker said:

ED is already developing an RTS engine for the dynamic campaign, so maybe an expansion of that could be integrated into CA, in order to add more value.

 

Ever since my purchase of CA and knowing a Dynamic campaign would someday be available, i've always wondered if/how ED has planned to integrate CA in relation with the Dynamic campaign. From what i understand, the Dynamic campaign will be mostly based around AI's trying to complete objectives and the players participating in that effort. This points out to me that any AI unit on the map either static/defensive or on the move towards an objective could/should be controllable by anyone owning CA right ? Therefore allowing the player to not only participate in the effort from the air, but also if he wishes, from the ground while controlling as first person a tank, artillery, APC, you name it, or controlling groups of units more so into a Command and Conquer style RTS way.

That type of possibility is something that does not require any additional work appart from the creation of said dynamic campaign, CA as it is right now would already allow anyone at any moment to choose a commander role and select any available unit on the map and do what he wishes with that unit, whether it would be to completely de route it from its original path/objective or simply manually controlling it all the way to the objective with the rest of the AI handled force (or alone, players choice anyway), it simply could be done, and that to me would allow so much more to the whole experience of a dynamic campaign thanks to CA.

 

Another aspect that comes to my mind is how will the Dynamic campaign handle assets and their availability ? It was said the dynamic campaign will have economical aspects (Production, Logistics, Use and transfer of ressources). Does that mean any side (Nation) during the dynamic campaign will have a certain amount of each asset/weapon/whatever ? And unless said asset/weapon/whatever is somehow replenished, you will only have the ones remaining alive/available in warehouses ?

 

An exemple to make sure this is clear :

You start the dynamic campaign and your only airfield available has 4 16s, 4 18s and 2 A10s (Not gonna take into account ammo and ground assets in this exemple even though it would work the same).

As the war goes on, you loose 2 * 16s, 1 * 18. (You are now left with 2 * 16s, 3 * 18s and 2 * A10s)

Until your nation is able to somehow replenish those 2 16s and only 18, you will have to fight for the remainder of the campaign with the remaining 2 16s, 3 18s and 2 A10s.

 

This is where i wanted to end up, considering any major war is usually mostly fought with ground units and usually has more ground assets in action than actual air assets, if you were to loose all flyable aircraft/owned modules in a particular dynamic campaign, but your nation still had plenty of ground assets and you owned CA, would you be able to continue the campaign just using CA ? Until any of your owned module planes are available again ? 

Wouldn't this add a whole lot more importance to CA ? Or at least give it much more interest/insentive to use it efficiently ?

 

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

On the tank side for me at least, I would like to see accurate track/suspension modeled, an accurate representation of the view port for each station including a 360 degree view from the opened commanders hatch, and accurate armor/gun performance. A fully clickable interior would be nice, but not necessary.

 

Very much agree with this aspect, one that i've seen represented in IL2 already, i was quite surprised at how well the whole tank crew player side of the game looked fun and engaging in a game that's purely focused on WWII aerial warfare ! Might not be perfect of coarse, but clearly good enough to make it very fun and immersive for players willing to use it rather than flying.

Hopefully it ain't a problem posting videos representing well what i'm talking about : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTrku4zDIQw&t=9s&ab_channel=Wolfpack345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G390RVcQIEY&ab_channel=b0wie1

 

Look at the detailed interior of those Tigers ? Although not clickable, still very immersive IMO.

 

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

add a more capable AI infantry that is attacking/defending me while I'm in a more detailed/accurate vehicle, with other players in more detailed/accurate tanks/helicopters/planes/jets also attacking/defending my position. Basically DCS World with more detailed/accurate vehicles and a more capable AI.

 

Again, fully agree with this. Although missing the infantry actually being useful and attacking/defending, once again i wanna point you to the 2 videos i posted above, imagine adding said infantry with the tank gameplay seen in those videos ? How awesome would it be ? Now how awesome would all that be in DCS:CA ?

I wish........

Edited August 4, 2021 by SparxOne

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

@Harker, I think your suggestions are just as welcome as everyone else's. So thanks. In terms of what can be done, I think the answer to that question changes on almost a daily basis. Look at the new clouds update for example. We now have a much more immersive world with improved performance. And there are other efforts currently underway that should help to continue building on that. So what is doable today, will likely change by the time we arrive at tomorrow.

 

I'm not sure I completely agree with your view that making CA more engaging would require a significant overhaul of how DCS works. The entire Eco-system already works pretty much the way most have requested. I think the bigger issue revolves more around memory overhead and performance by adding more vehicle detail, AI logic...

 

But one thing that hasn't been discussed very much is how the OP to this thread would like to see ships modeled.

 

On the tank side for me at least, I would like to see accurate track/suspension modeled, an accurate representation of the view port for each station including a 360 degree view from the opened commanders hatch, and accurate armor/gun performance. A fully clickable interior would be nice, but not necessary. On the ship side, what I would want is a way to control movement instead of having to use the mission editor. But again what should be given a high priority are things like accuracy in ship armor vs missile damage, missile range, radar, communications... ect. So basically the normal ED/DCS World way of doing things, no big changes here either. 

 

But I would like to hear from the OP what his vision would be for the ship models?

First, I'll start out by saying the goal and hope with Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops, would be for Eagle to set up 3 asset development teams- one each for air, land and naval assets.

• improve existing assets- better sensors and damage modeling
• add more assets. If we have the WW II asset pack we should be able to build a realistic mission starting in Sept 1939, and without it I would say 1953 on wards. t
• improve submarine warfare. Ideally this would involve modeling the ocean floor but in the short term at least have subs being able to fight underwater-as the USSR didn't have much of a surface fleet until the end of the cold war.
• improved ship interface, I would expect some VR CIC and gunnery. possibly some multi crew on some ships and tanks

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

Imho overhauling the current CA would be a waste of resources. There is so much stuff broken with CA on the lowest level, the user interface and concepts are horrible and just a pain to use. There seriously is not a single aspect of CA in its current state that would not need a major overhaul.

 

To go even further: hell, it's not even a real module. It's just an extension of the F10 map that somehow has been constructed on top and around the F10 maps' limitations with a nice picture in mind but no plan at all. It's a dead end.

Burn it down and build something new that is on a 2020's level tech wise and with a modern UI and features. Make it so it has its dedicated 2D/3D interface, provides common QOL features (multi-select units, unit grouping, define lines of advance to time attacks, unit list and other windows, ...), takes micro-management off the commander (new pathfinding, auto disperse/seek cover, auto-retreat on defined conditions, deep ROE settings, fire corridors, recon/advance until contact, ...).

 

Putting all this on current CA is like a dead tree with golden leaves duct taped to it. Really. Burn it and make room to let something new grow from its ashes.

I gather you voted yes, and this is why when it comes to CA I am willing to see CA II and not just an overhaul of the existing module. I don't know which is the better option

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SparxOne said:

Very much agree with this aspect, one that i've seen represented in IL2 already, i was quite surprised at how well the whole tank crew player side of the game looked fun and engaging in a game that's purely focused on WWII aerial warfare ! Might not be perfect of coarse, but clearly good enough to make it very fun and immersive for players willing to use it rather than flying.

Hopefully it ain't a problem posting videos representing well what i'm talking about : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTrku4zDIQw&t=9s&ab_channel=Wolfpack345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G390RVcQIEY&ab_channel=b0wie1

 

Look at the detailed interior of those Tigers ? Although not clickable, still very immersive IMO.

I'd love it if we had tank interiors like. 

[Jafferson]

Some of the ground units models, skins and animations are outdated and need a rework. Some RTS elements missing, like a drag box to select multiple units. And a lot more..

Development needs time and money.

Yes, i support a Update.

 

I'm also interested in Vehicle simulations with clickable crew stations. Like Steel Beasts pro. I would buy Tank modules for DCS.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Jafferson said:

Some of the ground units models, skins and animations are outdated and need a rework. Some RTS elements missing, like a drag box to select multiple units. And a lot more..

Development needs time and money.

Yes, i support a Update.

 

I'm also interested in Vehicle simulations with clickable crew stations. Like Steel Beasts pro. I would buy Tank modules for DCS.

I'd be fine with tank modules, though one Idea I had just to make online game easier would be if the loFi and HiFi could be automatically selected based on what players have. For example if there is a server with a combined arms mission, and you connect to an M1 with the HiFi module then that M1 will be HiFi for the rest of the game but if someone else connects to another M1 then it is the LoFi 

[shagrat]

Am 3.8.2021 um 04:01 schrieb Mower:

Nope who even uses it?

Me, for example. From going JTAC when I got shot down, to get blue AI to overrun an airfield and take it over in the generated missions in the Liberation Campaign, to actually jumping into a Tank or IFV to do some damage, if I'm in the mood. Aside from that I often check out terrain and area from the ground during mission design/planning.

Edited August 4, 2021 by shagrat
Corrected autocorrect.

[3WA]

ABSOLUTELY.

I've gotten bored with this sim, because even though it is named "World", there is only flight sim.

The ground is just ignored.

With no new Arma in sight, NOW is the time to make an Air / Ground / Sea simulation complete with FPS ground troops.

I could get you SOOOOO many new customers, if you would make an Arma II level simulation.  Of course, it would be a Thousand Times better, because you offer REAL simulation.

43 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Aside from that I often check out terrain and area from the ground during mission design/planning.

Me too.  I remember the first time you released the beta of F/A-18 on the free weekend.  I got shotdown over Persian Gulf, so I started walking around with my pilot character.

The sound of the F-18's roaring overhead was amazing, and the eerie quiet of the town I had dropped into made the night seem all the more realistic.  I walked up on to a hill, and just watched the jets soaring overhead.  I must have stood there for half an hour, just enjoying the spectacle.

Edited August 4, 2021 by 3WA

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, 3WA said:

ABSOLUTELY.

I've gotten bored with this sim, because even though it is named "World", there is only flight sim.

The ground is just ignored.

With no new Arma in sight, NOW is the time to make an Air / Ground / Sea simulation complete with FPS ground troops.

I could get you SOOOOO many new customers, if you would make an Arma II level simulation.  Of course, it would be a Thousand Times better, because you offer REAL simulation.

Me too.  I remember the first time you released the beta of F/A-18 on the free weekend.  I got shotdown over Persian Gulf, so I started walking around with my pilot character.

The sound of the F-18's roaring overhead was amazing, and the eerie quiet of the town I had dropped into made the night seem all the more realistic.  I walked up on to a hill, and just watched the jets soaring overhead.  I must have stood there for half an hour, just enjoying the spectacle.

 

It's important to remember that DCS is supposed to be land sea and air. While aircraft have been the main focus everything has a place 

Edited August 5, 2021 by upyr1

[Callsign112]

19 hours ago, SparxOne said:

Just finished reading through the entire thread (Started yesterday night but went to bed halfway through, i therefore don't remember each and every detail everyone said, mind me  )

Anyway, CA has been since the day i bought it a very special module, i feel like it is very much a hidden jewel that has such a potential to unleash if it was further developped. If i may use a metaphore here, CA is like an unpolished diamond waiting for it to get polished and have its value increased with it.

 

 

Ever since my purchase of CA and knowing a Dynamic campaign would someday be available, i've always wondered if/how ED has planned to integrate CA in relation with the Dynamic campaign. From what i understand, the Dynamic campaign will be mostly based around AI's trying to complete objectives and the players participating in that effort. This points out to me that any AI unit on the map either static/defensive or on the move towards an objective could/should be controllable by anyone owning CA right ? Therefore allowing the player to not only participate in the effort from the air, but also if he wishes, from the ground while controlling as first person a tank, artillery, APC, you name it, or controlling groups of units more so into a Command and Conquer style RTS way.

That type of possibility is something that does not require any additional work appart from the creation of said dynamic campaign, CA as it is right now would already allow anyone at any moment to choose a commander role and select any available unit on the map and do what he wishes with that unit, whether it would be to completely de route it from its original path/objective or simply manually controlling it all the way to the objective with the rest of the AI handled force (or alone, players choice anyway), it simply could be done, and that to me would allow so much more to the whole experience of a dynamic campaign thanks to CA.

 

Another aspect that comes to my mind is how will the Dynamic campaign handle assets and their availability ? It was said the dynamic campaign will have economical aspects (Production, Logistics, Use and transfer of ressources). Does that mean any side (Nation) during the dynamic campaign will have a certain amount of each asset/weapon/whatever ? And unless said asset/weapon/whatever is somehow replenished, you will only have the ones remaining alive/available in warehouses ?

 

An exemple to make sure this is clear :

You start the dynamic campaign and your only airfield available has 4 16s, 4 18s and 2 A10s (Not gonna take into account ammo and ground assets in this exemple even though it would work the same).

As the war goes on, you loose 2 * 16s, 1 * 18. (You are now left with 2 * 16s, 3 * 18s and 2 * A10s)

Until your nation is able to somehow replenish those 2 16s and only 18, you will have to fight for the remainder of the campaign with the remaining 2 16s, 3 18s and 2 A10s.

 

This is where i wanted to end up, considering any major war is usually mostly fought with ground units and usually has more ground assets in action than actual air assets, if you were to loose all flyable aircraft/owned modules in a particular dynamic campaign, but your nation still had plenty of ground assets and you owned CA, would you be able to continue the campaign just using CA ? Until any of your owned module planes are available again ? 

Wouldn't this add a whole lot more importance to CA ? Or at least give it much more interest/insentive to use it efficiently ?

 

 

Very much agree with this aspect, one that i've seen represented in IL2 already, i was quite surprised at how well the whole tank crew player side of the game looked fun and engaging in a game that's purely focused on WWII aerial warfare ! Might not be perfect of coarse, but clearly good enough to make it very fun and immersive for players willing to use it rather than flying.

Hopefully it ain't a problem posting videos representing well what i'm talking about : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTrku4zDIQw&t=9s&ab_channel=Wolfpack345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G390RVcQIEY&ab_channel=b0wie1

 

Look at the detailed interior of those Tigers ? Although not clickable, still very immersive IMO.

 

 

Again, fully agree with this. Although missing the infantry actually being useful and attacking/defending, once again i wanna point you to the 2 videos i posted above, imagine adding said infantry with the tank gameplay seen in those videos ? How awesome would it be ? Now how awesome would all that be in DCS:CA ?

I wish........

 

@SparxOne, I really enjoyed reading your post, thanks.

 

Yeah I am fully aware of the SIM you are referring to in the videos. I started writing my thoughts on it, but decided to start over because whats the point? It has its own issues, and its not clear at this point how they intend to correct them, or if they even can.

 

But more importantly, back to DCS World and its Combined Arms Tech Pack. What I find interesting is how much peoples views on any given issue are more often guided by subjective emotion as opposed to rational objectivity. People contributing to a thread on the CA/ground war side of DCS and asking for it to be terminated because according to them it is completely broken is a good example of subjective creativity in action. 

 

Take the Takolander video I linked on the previous page as another type of example. The biggest feature of CA is being able to drive the armored vehicles, and that works perfectly. The thing being asked for here does not require a complete overhaul of DCS World, or the Combined Arms Tech Pack. The thing being asked for is an update to the vehicles themselves. Which isn't any different then a million other requests here for the exact same thing. Does ED have to completely reinvent the way DCS World works when they update/fix/improve any of the plane models? Look at all the very important, and necessary work that is currently going into just the belt compositions of the war birds. How is asking for accurate armor/gun performance characteristics on the tanks any different? Most of what this thread is about is improving the ground/sea part so that it is more inline with the air side of DCS World. Imagine the same Takolander video, but with better vehicles and more capable AI infantry. Reinventing DCS World is not a requirement here. Making some refinements to the ground elements is.

 

The other things in CA also work a lot better then what some of the completely subjective comments here are suggesting. Maybe I don't know how other people are using CA then, because in my view, what CA does for me is it allows me to stay in the mission/game and control ground units without having to go back out to the mission editor. I am not saying that the interface couldn't use some tweaks/updates, but suggesting that the module be turned into a completely different format other than being part of DCS World is not the answer, because HTF am I supposed to get into the ground war in my Mustang, or my ME, or my Dora, or my Spit, or my Anton, or my I-16, or any of the other planes/jets/rotary winged aircraft I plan on buying? CA lets you set up a JTAC for any CAS buddies on the map. And it works!

 

AI infantry could really use some love to be honest. But a lot of work has already been done, and I think we should be tipping our hats to ED a little more than we do TBH. For example, take an armed vehicle from the WWII Assets and then circle it with an unarmed enemy unit so that it draws fire. The MG on the armed unit will follow the unarmed unit 360 degrees. And this works even if the unarmed unit leaves its line of sight, and returns from another direction. But the infantry don't react like that. They seem to have about a 90 degree field of view, and if you get behind them, it breaks any logic they were attached to. Also unit health is assigned to the vehicle and not to the soldiers driving/manning the MG. Aside from that, the infantry are very limited in the type of movements they can do. They basically are in an upright position regardless of whether they are standing still, or moving. I am not suggesting, or even hoping that the AI infantry will be revamped over night in a single update, but it would be nice to see a few more tweaks as the rest of DCS World moves forward.

19 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Imho overhauling the current CA would be a waste of resources. There is so much stuff broken with CA on the lowest level, the user interface and concepts are horrible and just a pain to use. There seriously is not a single aspect of CA in its current state that would not need a major overhaul.

 

To go even further: hell, it's not even a real module. It's just an extension of the F10 map that somehow has been constructed on top and around the F10 maps' limitations with a nice picture in mind but no plan at all. It's a dead end.

Burn it down and build something new that is on a 2020's level tech wise and with a modern UI and features. Make it so it has its dedicated 2D/3D interface, provides common QOL features (multi-select units, unit grouping, define lines of advance to time attacks, unit list and other windows, ...), takes micro-management off the commander (new pathfinding, auto disperse/seek cover, auto-retreat on defined conditions, deep ROE settings, fire corridors, recon/advance until contact, ...).

 

Putting all this on current CA is like a dead tree with golden leaves duct taped to it. Really. Burn it and make room to let something new grow from its ashes.

I would really like to respond to your post, but it would be helpful if you could link a video here showing all the things you see as being broken so that I can better appreciate your point of view. Because I don't see everything as being broken. In fact in my experience, pretty much most of what CA is supposed to do, it does.

 

I will happily respond to any linked video you put up, but barring that, maybe you could compile two lists for us; one showing all the things on the F-18 that worked 100% correctly on release, and the other showing everything that has been updated/tweaked/improved since then. Regardless of which list is longer, the F-18 is one of the most important and interesting modules in DCS World, and I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

18 hours ago, upyr1 said:

First, I'll start out by saying the goal and hope with Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops, would be for Eagle to set up 3 asset development teams- one each for air, land and naval assets.

• improve existing assets- better sensors and damage modeling
• add more assets. If we have the WW II asset pack we should be able to build a realistic mission starting in Sept 1939, and without it I would say 1953 on wards. t
• improve submarine warfare. Ideally this would involve modeling the ocean floor but in the short term at least have subs being able to fight underwater-as the USSR didn't have much of a surface fleet until the end of the cold war.
• improved ship interface, I would expect some VR CIC and gunnery. possibly some multi crew on some ships and tanks

I gather you voted yes, and this is why when it comes to CA I am willing to see CA II and not just an overhaul of the existing module. I don't know which is the better option

To you bullet points, I couldn't agree more. I think more than anything, they represent really what this thread is about, at least for me. I should say thanks for starting this thread, because I see these types of discussion to be very worthwhile having.

 

So TANKS!

Edited August 5, 2021 by Callsign112

[Mars Exulte]

22 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Imho overhauling the current CA would be a waste of resources. There is so much stuff broken with CA on the lowest level, the user interface and concepts are horrible and just a pain to use. There seriously is not a single aspect of CA in its current state that would not need a major overhaul.

  Pretty much. It doesn't need ''improvement'' or ''expansion'' it needs to be tossed in the bin and another attempt made.

[Callsign112]

17 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

wut

Exactly! I wasn't expecting you to actually back up what you said...

10 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Pretty much. It doesn't need ''improvement'' or ''expansion'' it needs to be tossed in the bin and another attempt made.

Is that an oxymoron... I can't tell!

[upyr1]

On 8/4/2021 at 11:16 AM, Desert Fox said:

Imho overhauling the current CA would be a waste of resources. There is so much stuff broken with CA on the lowest level, the user interface and concepts are horrible and just a pain to use. There seriously is not a single aspect of CA in its current state that would not need a major overhaul.

 

To go even further: hell, it's not even a real module. It's just an extension of the F10 map that somehow has been constructed on top and around the F10 maps' limitations with a nice picture in mind but no plan at all. It's a dead end.

Burn it down and build something new that is on a 2020's level tech wise and with a modern UI and features. Make it so it has its dedicated 2D/3D interface, provides common QOL features (multi-select units, unit grouping, define lines of advance to time attacks, unit list and other windows, ...), takes micro-management off the commander (new pathfinding, auto disperse/seek cover, auto-retreat on defined conditions, deep ROE settings, fire corridors, recon/advance until contact, ...).

 

Putting all this on current CA is like a dead tree with golden leaves duct taped to it. Really. Burn it and make room to let something new grow from its ashes.

this is a good argument for Combined Arms II. I'm not sure how much work it would take to fix the current combined Arms, though it might just make sense to just take the concept and start something new. I'm open either way. The real question is what would you do if Eagle put you in charge of Combined Arms II.  The way it is right now, there are two ways to play combined Arms, a tank sim or a strategy game. I really don't want to lose that dual aspect in any new version. However both aspects need to be improved. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by upyr1

[SparxOne]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The way it is right now, there are two ways to play combined Arms, a tank sim or a strategy game. I really don't want to lose that dual aspect in any new version. However both aspects need to be improved. 

 

I have to say here that this is indeed one aspect i hope to never loose if CA came to be upgraded/developped further, that is to not loose the ability to manually control units and literally go about driving them, manually shooting and just being in full control of it.

The RTS side should be further developped of coarse as it would be impossible for anyone trying to do a full scale assault to do it manually with each and every unit. But i stay on my initial point, manually controlling a unit remains a must and allows a clear added benefit to the whole CA.

 

Nothing like manually controlling an SA-15 or Tanguska and ambushing incoming aircrafts, or even manually driving a tank to attack an airbase, the possibilities are endless.

[Callsign112]

6 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

I simply stopped reacting to trolls. But yeah, you won that internet battle. Congrats! Go compile a F-18 list or something *block button sound*

 

I have been contributing to this thread with meaningful discussion from the beginning, Troll?

 

You could have just as easily explained more clearly by example what is broken instead of claiming that it is all broken. What is it CA is supposed to do but currently doesn't in your eyes? 

 

The measuring stick you seem to be using to determine that CA should be terminated is that it needs fixing. Show me a DCS module that never needed updating. CA sees a fraction of the updates the F-18 does, so the fact that it still feels unfinished shouldn't really be surprise. We would probably be saying the same thing about the F-18 if it didn't see the updates it does.

 

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

this is a good argument for Combined Arms II. I'm not sure how much work it would take to fix the current combined Arms, though it might just make sense to just take the concept and start something new. I'm open either way. The real question is what would you do if Eagle put you in charge of Combined Arms II.  The way it is right now, there are two ways to play combined Arms, a tank sim or a strategy game. I really don't want to lose that dual aspect in any new version. However both aspects need to be improved. 

 

If you go to the other tank sim, the thing everybody is screaming for is infantry. Infantry has massive positive effect on simulated battle field game play, and I would like to see it used more, not less.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Callsign112

[3WA]

8 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Pretty much. It doesn't need ''improvement'' or ''expansion'' it needs to be tossed in the bin and another attempt made.

Agreed.  It's ancient.  It needs to just be completely redone.

[Callsign112]

Everyone agrees that the UI could be updated/redone, but no one has really said how. In terms of being broken though, it does work pretty much as advertised.

 

The two videos are about 4 years apart, but they do a good job at showing how to use all the features of CA.

 

Several people have requested that they want to be able to select a squad at once like in RTS games.  This can be done sort of if infantry are placed as groups in the mission editor. Then in CA when you select the first infantry in a group and set its way point, the duplicated infantry in the group will follow. If you had 2 groups of 10 for example, you would only have to assign 2 way points to have all 20 infantry move.

 

 

 

 

[MAXsenna]

Everyone agrees that the UI could be updated/redone, but no one has really said how. In terms of being broken though, it does work pretty much as advertised.
 
The two videos are about 4 years apart, but they do a good job at showing how to use all the features of CA.
 
Several people have requested that they want to be able to select a squad at once like in RTS games.  This can be done sort of if infantry are placed as groups in the mission editor. Then in CA when you select the first infantry in a group and set its way point, the duplicated infantry in the group will follow. If you had 2 groups of 10 for example, you would only have to assign 2 way points to have all 20 infantry move.
 
 
[/url]  
 

How do you know which is #1?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

If you go to the other tank sim, the thing everybody is screaming for is infantry. Infantry has massive positive effect on simulated battle field game play, and I would like to see it used more, not less.

I'm with you on this. I've said it before Combined Arms reminds me of the spectrum holobyte tank sim in the early 1990s. I think the fact it give you the option to play as a stratagy game or as a tank sim is awesome. It would take a lot of work to do infantry properly. Not only do we need improved damage models for the troops, but we also need a way to simulate house to house fighting. (if done right this could help make unit placement easier) , a good command interface for a squad and more weapons. 

[upyr1]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:18 AM, Desert Fox said:

 

I simply stopped reacting to trolls. But yeah, you won that internet battle. Congrats! Go compile a F-18 list or something *block button sound*

 

 

On 8/5/2021 at 9:44 AM, Desert Fox said:

I would really like to respond to your post, but it would be helpful if you could link a video here showing all the things you see as being broken so that I can better appreciate your point of view. Because I don't see everything as being broken. In fact in my experience, pretty much most of what CA is supposed to do, it does.

 

I will happily respond to any linked video you put up, but barring that, maybe you could compile two lists for us; one showing all the things on the F-18 that worked 100% correctly on release, and the other showing everything that has been updated/tweaked/improved since then. Regardless of which list is longer, the F-18 is one of the most important and interesting modules in DCS World, and I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

 

On 8/5/2021 at 9:44 AM, Desert Fox said:

 

wut

All that @Callsign112 is asking here, is if there are any games which you think had a good interface and specific changes you want for the command interface?

[Callsign112]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:53 AM, MAXsenna said:

How do you know which is #1?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

If you have the primary unit selected in the mission editor and then move it around, all the other units will move with it. I you have selected one of the duplicated units, it will move by itself. After playing around with infantry a bit, what I found worked with some success was to have the primary unit back a bit from the rest of the squad. To make the squad movement look a little more natural, I also stagger them out a bit and use off-road way points. I do this to protect the primary unit. What I have noticed though is the AI logic of the whole group can sometimes get scrambled if part of the group gets lost/disconnected from its way points.

 

But I think you are highlighting/identifying one aspect that could use updating/improving. It would be nice if there was a way to tell which is the primary unit, and which are the duplicated units in the F10 maps. This would make group selections easier. Also, they might consider looking into what happens to selection of the group if the lead unit gets killed? I am traveling at the moment, so I am unable to try and simulate this.

 

Something else that would be useful would be the ability to select which ground unit you want your squad, or even a single unit to attack.

 

There are a long list of little things like this that could be looked into/updated without having to reinvent the wheel though. Like all the other modules, CA just needs to be polished/added to a bit more.

[Callsign112]

18 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I'm with you on this. I've said it before Combined Arms reminds me of the spectrum holobyte tank sim in the early 1990s. I think the fact it give you the option to play as a stratagy game or as a tank sim is awesome. It would take a lot of work to do infantry properly. Not only do we need improved damage models for the troops, but we also need a way to simulate house to house fighting. (if done right this could help make unit placement easier) , a good command interface for a squad and more weapons. 

I would add that we wouldn't really need to have infantry enter buildings. Not at least as the first update. It would work just as well, and probably even better if infantry could use trenches/sand bags/fortifications instead since all the real players will be outside in vehicles and not buildings.

 

Being able to snipe from within buildings would be great, but not an absolute requirement unless you were talking about the infantry being FPS, which I really don't think is the way to go. I think it would be in every ones best interest if the focus and game resources were kept on high fidelity vehicles/large map game play. AI infantry are needed to fill out the action. Real capable Infantry are needed to make the action look believable.

 

But you are right, they would have to ultimately give the infantry a pretty good update, but it doesn't have to be all at once. They could add smaller incremental updates like they do when they update most everything else. Have a close look at the WWII infantry in you haven't already, and it is hard not to notice they have already completed a fair amount of work IMO. The way point logic for example is vastly improved today over what it was when I first bought WWII Assets/CA.

[MAXsenna]

If you have the primary unit selected in the mission editor and then move it around, all the other units will move with it. I you have selected one of the duplicated units, it will move by itself. After playing around with infantry a bit, what I found worked with some success was to have the primary unit back a bit from the rest of the squad. To make the squad movement look a little more natural, I also stagger them out a bit and use off-road way points. I do this to protect the primary unit. What I have noticed though is the AI logic of the whole group can sometimes get scrambled if part of the group gets lost/disconnected from its way points.
 
But I think you are highlighting/identifying one aspect that could use updating/improving. It would be nice if there was a way to tell which is the primary unit, and which are the duplicated units in the F10 maps. This would make group selections easier. Also, they might consider looking into what happens to selection of the group if the lead unit gets killed? I am traveling at the moment, so I am unable to try and simulate this.
 
Something else that would be useful would be the ability to select which ground unit you want your squad, or even a single unit to attack.
 
There are a long list of little things like this that could be looked into/updated without having to reinvent the wheel though. Like all the other modules, CA just needs to be polished/added to a bit more.

I agree!
Some small changes, just basically copy from pretty much every RTS game there is with a better overlay, better selections and logic, both to the UI and AI would go a long way.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I would add that we wouldn't really need to have infantry enter buildings. Not at least as the first update. It would work just as well, and probably even better if infantry could use trenches/sand bags/fortifications instead since all the real players will be outside in vehicles and not buildings.

 

Being able to snipe from within buildings would be great, but not an absolute requirement unless you were talking about the infantry being FPS, which I really don't think is the way to go. I think it would be in every ones best interest if the focus and game resources were kept on high fidelity vehicles/large map game play. AI infantry are needed to fill out the action. Real capable Infantry are needed to make the action look believable.

 

But you are right, they would have to ultimately give the infantry a pretty good update, but it doesn't have to be all at once. They could add smaller incremental updates like they do when they update most everything else. Have a close look at the WWII infantry in you haven't already, and it is hard not to notice they have already completed a fair amount of work IMO. The way point logic for example is vastly improved today over what it was when I first bought WWII Assets/CA.

If figure the way to do urban combat without going full FPS, would be a timer and dice rolls. Give each side bonuses for being defensive and number.  This would take a while since it would require an overhaul of the buildings on the map to give them windows and damage models. A starting place would be the static object buildings in the mission editor. I'm assuming on Eagle's map editor that they are using a building object so they would only need to edit one spot to change all the buildings of a given type. 

[Callsign112]

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. 

 

[3WA]

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