More high quality materials for common MBTs

[ccl0214]

Such as  the latest M1A2、T-90SM even T-14、Challenger I&II、Merkava MK4、leopard 2A7、Leclerc、99A

[upyr1]

I'd love to see FF tank modules and combined arms II

[Northstar98]

Only if they come with supporting units and air defences.

Though all of these are far more modern than our aircraft (though I guess the A-10C could be made to fit).

[FlankerKiller]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I'd love to see FF tank modules and combined arms II

I too would love to see FF tanks, and a combined arms II. We would need much better ground combat AI though, and eventually a more detailed damage model for AI armor. But to be fair we actually need all of that for the Hind and the Apache. 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I too would love to see FF tanks, and a combined arms II. We would need much better ground combat AI though, and eventually a more detailed damage model for AI armor. But to be fair we actually need all of that for the Hind and the Apache. 

I say eagle should start work on it. The ground vehicles and ships need improvement and such improvements would be necessary for combined arms II , fleet ops , and full fidelity modules it would make a great starting point 

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I say eagle should start work on it. The ground vehicles and ships need improvement and such improvements would be necessary for combined arms II , fleet ops , and full fidelity modules it would make a great starting point 

I mean, it's "Digital Combat Simulator". No where in there does it state that it *just* has to be aircraft and helicopters being simulated. The trick is making sure that the ground assets are actually fun to operate while at the same time being worth the cost of entry. Sure, a FF M1 Abrams or Leopard would be nice, but let's face some cold hard facts: They're designed to operate with a crew, and to have a crew you'd have to have multicrew capability, and that means a viable AI. I could see it as a Jester AI control though, just with a four main branches:

• Driver
  • Advance slow
  • Advance
  • Advance fast
  • Halt
  • Reverse
• Gunner
  • Scan for targets (uses multiple sights to look for targets in a forward arc of the tank)
  • "Scan my view" (basically turns the turret to face where you're looking)
  • Target (tells the gunner to point the target at something you're looking at)
    • This would likely have the TC (IE, you) shout "GUNNER, (shell type), (target type). Followed by the gunner shouting "IDENTIFY!"
  • FIRE!
    • Gunner: "ON THE WAY!"
  • Main Cannon
  • Coax
• Loader
  • Load Shell Type
    • HEAT
    • HE
    • APFSDS
    • Missile (if applicable)
    • Shot (AP round for rifled cannons)
    • MG (tells the loader to unbutton and man his MG)
• Platoon (for PLs only)
  • ROE
    • Hold
    • Return
    • Free
  • Formation (various formations)
  • Move to:
    • My sight (move to an area you're looking at)
    • Map reference (move to an area on the map)
  • Halt
  • Engage
    • My Target (The other tanks engage something you designate)
    • My Fire (other tanks will hold fire and train their weapons on your target, and fire when your tank fires)

You as the TC however would have all the controls a normal TC would have, such as the CITV (in tanks that have it), the TC Override for the gun, and a bunch of others. Now, if it were up to me, you wouldn't have all the knobs and switches being clickable, after all how many players are going to enjoy sitting in a loaders seat and their only controls are for the ammo door, breech handle, Safety Lever, Hatch, and MG (if you have one)? So I'd make the Driver, Gunner, and TC positions playable, while the AI can run the loader and his actions.

That's my view of it though, but I'm an odd individual there.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I mean, it's "Digital Combat Simulator". No where in there does it state that it *just* has to be aircraft and helicopters being simulated. The trick is making sure that the ground assets are actually fun to operate while at the same time being worth the cost of entry. Sure, a FF M1 Abrams or Leopard would be nice, but let's face some cold hard facts: They're designed to operate with a crew, and to have a crew you'd have to have multicrew capability, and that means a viable AI. I could see it as a Jester AI control though, just with a four main branches:

• Driver
  • Advance slow
  • Advance
  • Advance fast
  • Halt
  • Reverse
• Gunner
  • Scan for targets (uses multiple sights to look for targets in a forward arc of the tank)
  • "Scan my view" (basically turns the turret to face where you're looking)
  • Target (tells the gunner to point the target at something you're looking at)
    • This would likely have the TC (IE, you) shout "GUNNER, (shell type), (target type). Followed by the gunner shouting "IDENTIFY!"
  • FIRE!
    • Gunner: "ON THE WAY!"
  • Main Cannon
  • Coax
• Loader
  • Load Shell Type
    • HEAT
    • HE
    • APFSDS
    • Missile (if applicable)
    • Shot (AP round for rifled cannons)
    • MG (tells the loader to unbutton and man his MG)
• Platoon (for PLs only)
  • ROE
    • Hold
    • Return
    • Free
  • Formation (various formations)
  • Move to:
    • My sight (move to an area you're looking at)
    • Map reference (move to an area on the map)
  • Halt
  • Engage
    • My Target (The other tanks engage something you designate)
    • My Fire (other tanks will hold fire and train their weapons on your target, and fire when your tank fires)

You as the TC however would have all the controls a normal TC would have, such as the CITV (in tanks that have it), the TC Override for the gun, and a bunch of others. Now, if it were up to me, you wouldn't have all the knobs and switches being clickable, after all how many players are going to enjoy sitting in a loaders seat and their only controls are for the ammo door, breech handle, Safety Lever, Hatch, and MG (if you have one)? So I'd make the Driver, Gunner, and TC positions playable, while the AI can run the loader and his actions.

That's my view of it though, but I'm an odd individual there.

I personally think Eagle needs to do combined arms II and fleet ops before they do full fidelity modules. They need to work on crew ai and damage models. I belive thatfleet ops and combined arms II each should be a family of modules focusing on a theater and era. 

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I personally think Eagle needs to do combined arms II and fleet ops before they do full fidelity modules. They need to work on crew ai and damage models. I belive thatfleet ops and combined arms II each should be a family of modules focusing on a theater and era. 

That's what I was getting at. It'd be much more detailed than what is currently available, and much that can be applied to just about any tank or AFV in the game. Obviously things would be different for the Naval side, and for Ground Vehicles that don't have a loader, but it'd work just most of the vehicles.

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Tank50us said:

That's what I was getting at. It'd be much more detailed than what is currently available, and much that can be applied to just about any tank or AFV in the game. Obviously things would be different for the Naval side, and for Ground Vehicles that don't have a loader, but it'd work just most of the vehicles.

I know we were in agreement. While there would clearly be differences I always lump the suggestion for Fleet Ops and Combined Arms II together sense both aspects of DCS are under developed. I'd expect to see a core module and add-ons that would take the place of asset packs. If the differnce between having the WWII asset pack and not having it is you can drive period vehicles then the multiplayer issue would disappear