Ships Defences too Potent..

[Exorcet]

On 6/10/2022 at 4:34 AM, Semaphore said:

My wish is that the option is that ships defence systems and accuracy should be 'randomised' to add the element of, with the 'luck of the gods' coming in to play to add realism.   

 

Just adding randomization everywhere isn't necessarily the best or most realistic option. We can see with the poorly chosen AI default behavior for missile range "random between max and NEZ" which leads to fighters using long range missiles only at dogfight ranges.

Given the simplified nature of ships I think their defenses are for the most part well modeled. They are absolutely not invincible in the current state, but against a modern warship it's a horrible idea to drop dumb bombs on it, as it should be.

What would be ideal, at least in my opinion, is a deeper skill system that includes human factors and a condition system for the equipment itself. Let us keep the option of having a really disciplined and vigilant crew or let us choose one that's poorly trained and unprofessional. Then separate from that let's be able to set equipment to being perfectly maintained or pulled from a scrapyard. Perhaps we could even have similar options on the country/coalition level to simulate morale, etc.

[Semaphore]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Just adding randomization everywhere isn't necessarily the best or most realistic option. We can see with the poorly chosen AI default behavior for missile range "random between max and NEZ" which leads to fighters using long range missiles only at dogfight ranges.

Given the simplified nature of ships I think their defenses are for the most part well modeled. They are absolutely not invincible in the current state, but against a modern warship it's a horrible idea to drop dumb bombs on it, as it should be.

What would be ideal, at least in my opinion, is a deeper skill system that includes human factors and a condition system for the equipment itself. Let us keep the option of having a really disciplined and vigilant crew or let us choose one that's poorly trained and unprofessional. Then separate from that let's be able to set equipment to being perfectly maintained or pulled from a scrapyard. Perhaps we could even have similar options on the country/coalition level to simulate morale, etc.

Talk to the survisors of HMS Aerdent, Antelope and Coventry, all of which were sunk as a result of being bombed with dumb bombs... in the case of HMS Ardent, she suffered multiple hits by dumb bombs!  Consequently, given the accuracy and lethality of modelled warships, and the fact that they dont seem to suffer any impediments, in my humble opinion,my statement still stands, the ships in DCS are too potent an advesary within the game/simulation.

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

That's a triggered action, which are almost exactly like the tasks found in "ADVANCED (WAYPOINT ACTIONS)" just they can be directly triggered from the triggers menu (which I find to be more convenient).

In this case I've used the "AI TASK SET" action to enable them. (I actually should've used AI TASK PUSH - I've attached a corrected mission file below). If I wanted to use advanced waypoint actions, all I would need to do is create a flag for each of them.

The "SAM_ROE_free" is just a name I've given the triggered action. You don't have to do this, but if you have a large number of triggered actions it definitely helps with finding the one you want.

Simple OODA delay example.miz 10.25 kB · 1 download

 

This has worked a treat.  Many thanks for taking the time to explain this alkl to me.  I most definitely have learnt something new and am now in your debt.

[Silver_Dragon]

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Couldn't agree more with land/sea based modules and the need for dedicated teams that can get more accomplished then fixes/updates.

Shouldn't require making a whole new game from scratch though. Think of another WWII flight game that only had planes little more than 2 years ago. Today they have player controlled tanks.

But in the case of DCS, there is actually 2 ways they could go with this.

They could just keep adding more functionality to CA with each update, or make individual modules as add-ons. Personally, one of the main attractions to CA for me is the number of vehicles it includes, so I wouldn't mind seeing the improvements added to CA, but I would also very much support the addition of individual modules.

I dont talking about "new games", I talk ED can move to improve your core game and the land and sea branches with dedicated teams, similar to all new funtionality on the Supercarrier as example (are your propper team), but as Wags and other ED team as talked from 10 years ago, that take researh time, resorses, team building and more.

OT: the OTHER WW2 game, has only a arcade with tanks.... has very better realistic examples on tank warfare.

Remember, CA was based on a UK Army JTAC trainer military product, aproved to be released. I Dont expecter more improvements, similar to the actual FC3. We only see some more realistic if ED start to move a vehicle module, and if get aproval to a FPS (some rumors on the last years).

[Northstar98]

15 minutes ago, Semaphore said:

This has worked a treat.  Many thanks for taking the time to explain this alkl to me.  I most definitely have learnt something new and am now in your debt.

No problem Glad you found it useful.

[Semaphore]

3 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember, CA was based on a UK Army JTAC trainer military product, aproved to be released. I Dont expecter more improvements, similar to the actual FC3. We only see some more realistic if ED start to move a vehicle module, and if get aproval to a FPS (some rumors on the last years).

Thats interesting as I myself have worked on an MOD project that was a synthetic trainer for for JTAC training but it was based with the RAF.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I dont talking about "new games", I talk ED can move to improve your core game and the land and sea branches with dedicated teams, similar to all new funtionality on the Supercarrier as example (are your propper team), but as Wags and other ED team as talked from 10 years ago, that take researh time, resorses, team building and more.

 

I would love it ed got the teams going 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

OT: the OTHER WW2 game, has only a arcade with tanks.... has very better realistic examples on tank warfare.

Remember, CA was based on a UK Army JTAC trainer military product, aproved to be released. I Dont expecter more improvements, similar to the actual FC3. We only see some more realistic if ED start to move a vehicle module, and if get aproval to a FPS (some rumors on the last years).

I don't expect Eagle to do much with the existing combined arms module. Though combined arms II or a spin off might be good. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by upyr1

[Exorcet]

17 hours ago, Semaphore said:

Talk to the survisors of HMS Aerdent, Antelope and Coventry, all of which were sunk as a result of being bombed with dumb bombs...

In the 80's. They're not modern. They were also mostly frigates and didn't have very potent SAM's. I'm not surprised that a modern CVN is invulnerable to such tactics in DCS. However on the other hand, send 4 H-6J's after a carrier and even with escort ships the carrier will sink 80% of the time. It's kind of scary how easy it is. You just need the right tool for the job.

17 hours ago, Semaphore said:

in the case of HMS Ardent, she suffered multiple hits by dumb bombs!  Consequently, given the accuracy and lethality of modelled warships, and the fact that they dont seem to suffer any impediments, in my humble opinion,my statement still stands, the ships in DCS are too potent an advesary within the game/simulation.

What ships in particular? The ones I'm most familiar with are the US/Russian/Chinese modernish cruisers. They're good at self defense, and should be nearly immune to attempts at being dumb bombed but far from invincible. You seem to maybe be looking at less capable ships. I know some land units have ridiculously high AA gun accuracy, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's a ship issue too, I just haven't encountered it.

[Callsign112]

22 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I don't see any techincal reasons to do a new game though there might be a marketing reason to do so. On the marketing side, it might make sense to spin Combined Arms off into it's own game and leave DCS for full fidelity modules. If eagle did that, I would want cross game play unless someone running a server says no. 

Anyway with Combined Arms, I'm not sure if it would be cost effective for Eagle to fix everything via free updates, so I would rather see Combined Arms II or the spin off with a discount for people who already own combined arms, than nothing at all. 

As for ships, as think naval modules would have the most limits on what we can do I figure do things from the captain's perspective.

In both cases with Combined Arms and Fleet Ops, they should be a serise of era/ location themed modules that take the place of asset packs. For example, Fleet ops: Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club,   would be a better way to get Vietnam era Naval assets than a dedicated Vietnam asset pack.

 

I don't see the need either, and doubt that would be a requirement as suggested above.

I think we are likely going to continue seeing improvements/updates/fixes to DCS world and all its modules, but whether we see individual modules of ground units is to be seen.

I think they could certainly do it successfully, and considering this is how it is done for aircraft, there is no reason to think they won't do it for ground/sea as well. But we will have to wait and see. 

They could certainly just keep fleshing out CA by adding/improving all the various physics models for ground/sea assets and basically arrive at the same endpoint.

In terms of Navy assets, it would be nice to have various stations modeled on ships, but I am also happy with the way we currently view ships in the game world. What I think needs to be addressed more as priority issues would be things like Damage Models, weapons systems, movement control, and of course the number and type of units available.

But yeah, all good points so... +1

[Callsign112]

17 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I dont talking about "new games", I talk ED can move to improve your core game and the land and sea branches with dedicated teams, similar to all new funtionality on the Supercarrier as example (are your propper team), but as Wags and other ED team as talked from 10 years ago, that take researh time, resorses, team building and more.

OT: the OTHER WW2 game, has only a arcade with tanks.... has very better realistic examples on tank warfare.

Remember, CA was based on a UK Army JTAC trainer military product, aproved to be released. I Dont expecter more improvements, similar to the actual FC3. We only see some more realistic if ED start to move a vehicle module, and if get aproval to a FPS (some rumors on the last years).

Believe me SD, I agree with you completely, and understood your point. That is why I referenced the other game, to give an example of player controllable ground vehicles. We already have plenty of ground units in DCS that we can control through the use of CA.

I think it is one of the most impressing list of controllable ground assets on the market today. All they really need to start doing is updating/improving things like power train/suspension, gun/armor, and view ports for the various stations on each vehicle.

A lot of this is already modeled in DCS, even if it is just a placeholder at the moment.

I have said it before, and I will repeat it here, CA is an incredibly powerful piece of software in the way that it lets the user take control of the game world.

[Exorcet]

15 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I have said it before, and I will repeat it here, CA is an incredibly powerful piece of software in the way that it lets the user take control of the game world.

CA is kind of special. It may not be high fidelity, but allowing human players to fill in for AI is incredibly powerful. This is why it should be considered a very important part of DCS even if it's not as realistic as the modules. It should also be expanded to include every asset in the game from tankers to AWACS to patrol boats.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

I don't see the need either, and doubt that would be a requirement as suggested above.

I think we are likely going to continue seeing improvements/updates/fixes to DCS world and all its modules, but whether we see individual modules of ground units is to be seen.

I think they could certainly do it successfully, and considering this is how it is done for aircraft, there is no reason to think they won't do it for ground/sea as well. But we will have to wait and see. 

They could certainly just keep fleshing out CA by adding/improving all the various physics models for ground/sea assets and basically arrive at the same endpoint.

In terms of Navy assets, it would be nice to have various stations modeled on ships, but I am also happy with the way we currently view ships in the game world. What I think needs to be addressed more as priority issues would be things like Damage Models, weapons systems, movement control, and of course the number and type of units available.

But yeah, all good points so... +1

I have a better example about a game with can put the minimum about CA need reach...a very old :). Surelly someone remember them...

If ED can build that inmersion and your campaigns and trainigns, I got satisfaced. Was my first tank game... I recomend search them and playing.

On naval combat, a old Red Storm Rissing to a Dangerous Wathers on submarines, and a destroyer command / Task force 1942 to a Dangerous Waters.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I have a better example about a game with can put the minimum about CA need reach...a very old :). Surelly someone remember them...

If ED can build that inmersion and your campaigns and trainigns, I got satisfaced. Was my first tank game... I recomend search them and playing.

On naval combat, a old Red Storm Rissing to a Dangerous Wathers on submarines, and a destroyer command / Task force 1942 to a Dangerous Waters.

 

Something like that would be awesome. I have said it multiple times I would love to see a series of combined arms type modules focusing on theaters and periods. 

Same with the ships. I think something like carrier command might be good for the CVs and lhas 

Edited June 17, 2022 by upyr1

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Exorcet said:

CA is kind of special. It may not be high fidelity, but allowing human players to fill in for AI is incredibly powerful. This is why it should be considered a very important part of DCS even if it's not as realistic as the modules. It should also be expanded to include every asset in the game from tankers to AWACS to patrol boats.

Agree there though I would like multiple land and sea modules even if they aren't hi fidelity. As I think if done right it will result in a better balance of detail and affordability.

[Callsign112]

On 6/16/2022 at 2:00 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

I have a better example about a game with can put the minimum about CA need reach...a very old :). Surelly someone remember them...

If ED can build that inmersion and your campaigns and trainigns, I got satisfaced. Was my first tank game... I recomend search them and playing.

On naval combat, a old Red Storm Rissing to a Dangerous Wathers on submarines, and a destroyer command / Task force 1942 to a Dangerous Waters.

 

That's a classic I can't say I've had the pleasure knowing. For armored vehicles though, if anyone at ED is wondering what their next move should be.... have a look at Gunner Heat PC. For infantry the benchmark would have to be something like MOWAS2/CTA-GOH Ostront.

17 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Something like that would be awesome. I have said it multiple times I would love to see a series of combined arms type modules focusing on theaters and periods. 

Same with the ships. I think something like carrier command might be good for the CVs and lhas 

 

 

17 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Agree there though I would like multiple land and sea modules even if they aren't hi fidelity. As I think if done right it will result in a better balance of detail and affordability.

Yeah Yeah +1