Troops occupying buildings

[Mohamengina]

Wargame does this mechanic really well.

 

Would be awesome to allow troops to occupy buildings which they could fire out of and would give them a defensive bonus. Would also allow them to ambush vehicles and other infantry.

 

They could be identified by seeing them in the windows/on the roof and would die if the building got destroyed or set on fire.

[Hotdognz]

Just some new ground AI routines would be nice instead of the turkey shoot that it is currently.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Hotdognz said:

Just some new ground AI routines would be nice instead of the turkey shoot that it is currently.

Agreed but I think troops in buildings would be a good improvement 

[Kang]

Would be a good improvement, but quite frankly I think the ground forces in general (and CA module specifically) has much bigger construction sites going than that.

[FlankerKiller]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:04 AM, Kang said:

Would be a good improvement, but quite frankly I think the ground forces in general (and CA module specifically) has much bigger construction sites going than that.

Like what? Is there any, and I mean even one shred of evidence that ED even knows there is a such thing as a ground forces mechanic? 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Like what? Is there any, and I mean even one shred of evidence that ED even knows there is a such thing as a ground forces mechanic? 

I would love to see combined arms II if they used it to fund an overhaul of the ground war.

[FlankerKiller]

Exactly, honestly they need to use the profits from the Apache to fund ground war improvements. But a Combined Armes II would be welcome as well. They could use it to fund a change to ground vehicle damage models, and countermeasures. I also think an Ai tactical comander could be a good addition. I personally would love to see some of the weapons targeting systems that they have combined with a damage model similar to ARMA. And maybe some kind a head movement for comanders. That could lay the groundwork for full fidelity armor. And yes I do think DCS could be a good tank simulator. Looking at the clips from Gunner HEAT PC I don't see any reason DCS couldn't do the same thing. And like you said that could all fund a better ground environment. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

Exactly, honestly they need to use the profits from the Apache to fund ground war improvements. But a Combined Armes II would be welcome as well. They could use it to fund a change to ground vehicle damage models, and countermeasures. I also think an Ai tactical comander could be a good addition. I personally would love to see some of the weapons targeting systems that they have combined with a damage model similar to ARMA. And maybe some kind a head movement for comanders. That could lay the groundwork for full fidelity armor. And yes I do think DCS could be a good tank simulator. Looking at the clips from Gunner HEAT PC I don't see any reason DCS couldn't do the same thing. And like you said that could all fund a better ground environment. 

 

I figure if they need to start  the overhaul then kicked into od once ca II was available for pre-purchase 

[FlankerKiller]

That wold be a good way to get funds. I suspect CA is going to see a surge in popularity. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

That wold be a good way to get funds. I suspect CA is going to see a surge in popularity. 

I hope you are right, especially if ED decided to work on it some.  I would love to see ED fix Combined Arms, but if we get enough upgrades I'll go for Combined Arms II or even a serise of modules. 

[FlankerKiller]

People are going to figure out real quick that ground combat sucks in DSC. The Apache is a huge module. And People are going to want an interesting gaming experience. Online that will mean CA players trying to beat the gunships. And offline that's going to drive a push for better ground combat. I think a refocus on ground combat is inevitable at this point. 

[rcjonessnp175]

Im suprised the technicals havent been released yet,  yes the whole ground game immersion needs to go up quite a few notches.  This was all known well before the apache was a thing in dcs

[Kang]

20 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Like what? Is there any, and I mean even one shred of evidence that ED even knows there is a such thing as a ground forces mechanic? 

Precisely. What I meant is that there are huge problems going on in Combined Arms and this extra feature would be quite down the list of priorities, in my personal opinion.

As of Combined Arms II... well, the way I see Combined Arms going so far there'd have to be a whole lot more than vague promises of improvement before I even consider throwing more money at that, that's for sure.

[Callsign112]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:54 AM, Hotdognz said:

Just some new ground AI routines would be nice instead of the turkey shoot that it is currently.

 

On 4/8/2022 at 6:04 AM, Kang said:

Would be a good improvement, but quite frankly I think the ground forces in general (and CA module specifically) has much bigger construction sites going than that.

I agree and think it would be much more doable if they worked on something like being able to use above ground fortifications/existing map objects to go along with the improved Ai mechanic. Having troops in buildings would be great, but then you would have to also revamp the damage model for buildings on top of the work required just to allow Ai to enter them.

But to me the pressing issues are more related to a more capable Ai infantry with much improved vehicles that real players use.

[antiload]

I think Arma 3 does troop movements brilliantly. They have a great heat map and run from tanks when hit or if near explosions. If a similar AI routine could be implemented for DCS that would make a great sim fantastic.  

[Hotdognz]

I wouldn't throw any money at Combine Arms 2 considering the lack of any real development for CA in the last 3 years (in AI routines), id need to see some significant improvement to Ai routines, its use in VR for the CA weapon sights.

As others have said here the whole ground war immersion needs to go up a lot of notches now the Apache has dropped as its by far the most popular helicopter and really is wasted on what DCS has as a ground war ATM.

 

[upyr1]

47 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

I wouldn't throw any money at Combine Arms 2 considering the lack of any real development for CA in the last 3 years (in AI routines), id need to see some significant improvement to Ai routines, its use in VR for the CA weapon sights.

Combined arms is the skeleton in the pool meme. I would love to see them pay attention to it. I am willing to pay for CA ii or expansion packs if it gets eagle as long as it gets done. The ideal situation would be to fix CA then use expansion packs to add vehicles. Though no matter what they need to work on the ground war.

47 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

As others have said here the whole ground war immersion needs to go up a lot of notches now the Apache has dropped as its by far the most popular helicopter and really is wasted on what DCS has as a ground war ATM.

 

This is the need to work on the ground war 

[Callsign112]

On 4/12/2022 at 4:40 PM, Hotdognz said:

...As others have said here the whole ground war immersion needs to go up a lot of notches now the Apache has dropped as its by far the most popular helicopter and really is wasted on what DCS has as a ground war ATM.

Very true.

On 4/12/2022 at 5:58 PM, upyr1 said:

Combined arms is the skeleton in the pool meme. I would love to see them pay attention to it. I am willing to pay for CA ii or expansion packs if it gets eagle as long as it gets done. The ideal situation would be to fix CA then use expansion packs to add vehicles. Though no matter what they need to work on the ground war.

This is the need to work on the ground war 

I would think adding vehicles packs would be the easy part because I am pretty sure they would be very well supported by the community, but in terms of fixing the CA/Ai logic thing, it's so hard to make heads or tails out of where they're at because things go sooooo sloooooow. 

[Kang]

The whole problem with adding new vehicles as a paid module addon is that it loops right back to the dilemma that is the WW2 asset pack.

[Callsign112]

7 hours ago, Kang said:

The whole problem with adding new vehicles as a paid module addon is that it loops right back to the dilemma that is the WW2 asset pack.

How would adding paid vehicle modules be like the assets pack? Wouldn't it be like just another plane module except instead of being in a plane, your in a tank?

[Kang]

Ah, I see I misunderstood what you meant there. I thought you meant adding further ground assets in general as a paid pack.

[FlankerKiller]

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

How would adding paid vehicle modules be like the assets pack? Wouldn't it be like just another plane module except instead of being in a plane, your in a tank?

I would have to agree. The Hifi Ai model would be available to all. Definitely would make some money available for improvements to ground combat. It would also open up a whole new aspect of combat for DCS. I would buy an Abrams module in a second. Or a Bradley for that Matter. I can't imagine that the modules would be quite as hard as modern fighters to produce. And the biggest obstacle was the Ai crew, and that is done. 

[Callsign112]

3 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I would have to agree. The Hifi Ai model would be available to all. Definitely would make some money available for improvements to ground combat. It would also open up a whole new aspect of combat for DCS. I would buy an Abrams module in a second. Or a Bradley for that Matter. I can't imagine that the modules would be quite as hard as modern fighters to produce. And the biggest obstacle was the Ai crew, and that is done. 

I would definitely buy all armored modules both modern and WWII. And yes, I agree it could only help to add funding to the ground war side of DCS.

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, Kang said:

The whole problem with adding new vehicles as a paid module addon is that it loops right back to the dilemma that is the WW2 asset pack.

No, it wouldn't as you would pay for a playable module and if you don't pay you still get an ai asset the real issue is how many vehicles per module?

Edited April 17, 2022 by upyr1

[Exorcet]

On 4/12/2022 at 7:18 AM, Callsign112 said:

 

I agree and think it would be much more doable if they worked on something like being able to use above ground fortifications/existing map objects to go along with the improved Ai mechanic. Having troops in buildings would be great, but then you would have to also revamp the damage model for buildings on top of the work required just to allow Ai to enter them.

I think troops in buildings is actually more of a low hanging fruit than anything else. I know a lot of people want the AI to be able to take cover behind buildings/terrain when attacked, but this is probably harder than it sounds. It requires revamping the entire AI detection system (to know where to hide you need to know where the enemy is, but this also has to be a fallible ability so that proper tactics on the attacker's side remain effective), it may require new animations (troops pressing against walls, crouching to fit behind objects, etc), and then there is the CPU overhead for controlling all these AI that need to decide where to go.

On the other hand, hiding in a building could be done just by having the troops get close to a particular building, then disappear, then have the building in question gain weapons (whatever the troops were holding). Depending on how DCS is coded the troop embarkment from helicopters and such could just be copy-pasted.