And now for something completely different...

[Captain Orso]

From my experience--admittedly in CA fairly limited--the concept of manning every single vehicle to get it to work intelligently is simply not a viable option. While in the air there are maybe a dozen aircraft of all types, on the ground should be many, MANY times more vehicles and infantry units. The idea of controlling them all with the tools CA offers is simply not reasonable.

Consider, if manning a single AAA or SAM unit on a battlefield is going to make a noticeable different, then the game is broken from the beginning, because all the AI ground units are little more than statics and targets.

In stead of trying to man every single unit personally, what if the interface were made so that it was more like in other games in which you are meant to be a battlefield commander and command many, if not all, ground units. I didn't say control, bc I'm talking about something other than getting into a vehicle and driving it or operating its weapons. I'm thinking more in the lines of Steel Division or Wargame: Airland Battle. There are hundreds of YT videos demonstrating game play, so I won't try to describe it in detail, bc you can see better examples than I could ever describe.

I came up with this idea yesterday while playing with my squadron-mates. I wanted to setup a mission for them in Apaches to hunt insurgents in a town, while the insurgents snipe at them and then scurry into hiding again. The biggest issues are

1) Vehicles don't move intelligently. They get hung up on buildings, don't have any concept of trying to keep out-of-sight from the enemy, don't have any idea of pulling into position to fire at them enemy and then ducking away again only to pop-up somewhere else.

2) The UI for CA is miserable at best. On a scale of 1 - 10 of how ergonomic and logical the controls are, I would give CA -2.

================

My question is, would you trade sitting in a vehicle and looking through the gunsights for a UI that would make using CA an actual fun experience?

What do you think, and what would be your favorite solution.

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

From my experience--admittedly in CA fairly limited--the concept of manning every single vehicle to get it to work intelligently is simply not a viable option. While in the air there are maybe a dozen aircraft of all types, on the ground should be many, MANY times more vehicles and infantry units. The idea of controlling them all with the tools CA offers is simply not reasonable.

Consider, if manning a single AAA or SAM unit on a battlefield is going to make a noticeable different, then the game is broken from the beginning, because all the AI ground units are little more than statics and targets.

In stead of trying to man every single unit personally, what if the interface were made so that it was more like in other games in which you are meant to be a battlefield commander and command many, if not all, ground units. I didn't say control, bc I'm talking about something other than getting into a vehicle and driving it or operating its weapons. I'm thinking more in the lines of Steel Division or Wargame: Airland Battle. There are hundreds of YT videos demonstrating game play, so I won't try to describe it in detail, bc you can see better examples than I could ever describe.

I came up with this idea yesterday while playing with my squadron-mates. I wanted to setup a mission for them in Apaches to hunt insurgents in a town, while the insurgents snipe at them and then scurry into hiding again. The biggest issues are

1) Vehicles don't move intelligently. They get hung up on buildings, don't have any concept of trying to keep out-of-sight from the enemy, don't have any idea of pulling into position to fire at them enemy and then ducking away again only to pop-up somewhere else.

2) The UI for CA is miserable at best. On a scale of 1 - 10 of how ergonomic and logical the controls are, I would give CA -2.

================

My question is, would you trade sitting in a vehicle and looking through the gunsights for a UI that would make using CA an actual fun experience?

What do you think, and what would be your favorite solution.

IMO, you are conflating two features that have little to do with each other. Being able to drive a vehicle has little to do with how the Ai works in general.

To the bold text above, I don't believe the concept of CA is to man every single unit personally. I think the concept is more to be able to take command over a battlefield scenario. You do this by setting the number and type of CA slots you want the various teams to have access to. The ability to be a battlefield commander has been a feature of Combined Arms at least since I purchased it almost 3 years ago.

To your point 1, I agree it is far from perfect, but I have been able to get Ai vehicles to move intelligently, and quite often with very little effort. Where they could really improve on Ai logic is in your point about taking evasive maneuvers. The Ai do react with each other in terms of trading fire, but could be a bit more dynamic in terms of using cover, attack, hold, retreat IMO.

To your point 2, I think current control is quite a bit better than miserable, but could use more refinement for sure. Being able to do things like click/drag to make groups on the fly would be a good start.

No I wouldn't trade being able to drive/control a unit for a UI that would improve the CA experience, because I don't think they are related in anyway to cause a problem. I think the UI could be improved, but being able to control/drive a vehicle isn't the cause, or the reason the UI needs improving. Having the ability to drive a unit simply adds another layer of capability to the way you command the battlefield. Improving the UI would simply aid the way you do it.

[Captain Orso]

Thanks for the reply Callsign112. 

The reason I would sacrifice First-Person vehicle operations, it because it would make a battlefield UI that much more complex and difficult. Leave out FP control and more time and effort can be put into the battlefield UI.

It's also ideology. I don't want ED to every be able to say, "well, if you don't like how the AI is doing it, just jump into the vehicle and do it yourself". NO, I want an AI that doesn't need me to constantly take it on the hand.

Honestly, if you want to play tank commander, there are games which do it, and will always do it, far better than DCS.

Yesterday, while guiding only 4 pickups, and then 4 APC's it dawned on my, if I could control them like I do in Steel Division, what a blast this would be, and not a chore and a disappointment.

 

[draconus]

Surely, CA could use a lot of improvements, also for both UI and FP parts but I don't catch how removing one of the features could improve the other. There are currently no plans for new CA features or improvements but it takes a lot from general DCS core development - AI, ground units, infantry... So it is what it is atm and the wishlist is this way:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/967-wish-list/

[Captain Orso]

The thing is, before I make a wish, I want to know what ideas others have.

I think the very first question is really, do people really come to DCS to drive tanks? It hat really what players want? Should there be missions just for CA, with dozens of slots for an armored battalion with dozens of tanks, APC's, all the AAA, and SAMs, all manned by players sitting inside them--even multiple players in one vehicle--is that what players are asking for?

I cannot imagine the ED will ever make DCS-CA into anything that will draw in the numbers of players like you see playing something like War Thunder, or Arma III, or whatever. But if vehicles driven by a player, the same as players fly airplanes and helicopters, is not what players are coming to DCS to do, what is the point of investing time and money into developing it, when the resources could be used for other aspects of the ground war, that would actually appeal to players?

 

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

But if vehicles driven by a player, the same as players fly airplanes and helicopters, is not what players are coming to DCS to do, what is the point of investing time and money into developing it, when the resources could be used for other aspects of the ground war, that would actually appeal to players?

None of this is planned so I don't know what resources are you talking about - they don't have the CA team to develop it any further, it just gets on whatever DCS core has.

You'd find the market for both FF vehicle sim, FPS and RTS game among DCS players but you're long enough here to know better that comparing DCS to other blockbusters is not really good idea. I personally was never interested in commanding any more than one unit apart from some flight lead orders or giving push command for the strike group, so naturally FPS or vehicle sim in DCS actually appeal to me.

Mind that CA is an old product, it started as JTAC sim, some cool ideas were throwned uppon it just to see how it goes and... here we are.

[SparxOne]

11 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

The thing is, before I make a wish, I want to know what ideas others have.

I think the very first question is really, do people really come to DCS to drive tanks? It hat really what players want? Should there be missions just for CA, with dozens of slots for an armored battalion with dozens of tanks, APC's, all the AAA, and SAMs, all manned by players sitting inside them--even multiple players in one vehicle--is that what players are asking for?

I cannot imagine the ED will ever make DCS-CA into anything that will draw in the numbers of players like you see playing something like War Thunder, or Arma III, or whatever. But if vehicles driven by a player, the same as players fly airplanes and helicopters, is not what players are coming to DCS to do, what is the point of investing time and money into developing it, when the resources could be used for other aspects of the ground war, that would actually appeal to players?

 

While i agree with you concerning the invesment of time, money and ressources, i like to keep in mind how much potential CA has in DCS, from what its main purpose was back in the days to how it slowly evolved to what it is now, CA remains a really fun experience when used in proper scenarios

CA will never replace a war thunder tank experience, neither Arma, because CA is barebone compared to them titles, but just like plenty things in life, unless you create an appeal/ necessity for something, don't expect said thing to have any demand/use, and by that i mean, nobody needed internet back in the days, yet today every single person in well developped countries need it, nobody needed cellphones back in the days, yet today people spend a months wage on a new cellphone every 2 years almost, social networks (Facebook, instagram, ticktoc etc), nobody needed them back in the beginnings of wide spread internet, as you guessed it, same story for them, the vast majority of people use them nowadays... (I could come up with tons of other exemples, but you get it i suppose  )

What i'm trying to say here is that CA could become a very appealling product of ED, something allowing another fun experience in the world of DCS, but that would require what ED simply doesn't have or are willing to put into it -> Time, money and ressources.

Until that changes, CA will stay as it is, fun to have (In select scenarios) but far from a necessity.

[Eugel]

17 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

I think the very first question is really, do people really come to DCS to drive tanks?

To be honest, that´s the reason I bought CA, so yes.
From time to time, I don´t feel like hopping in the simpit, putting on the VR headset etc. and instead just drive around with keyboard and mouse.
But it´s really the "combined" part that interested me the most. Being able to drive around in a recon vehicle and lase targets for the other guys that sit in an A-10 or something, taking out SAM sites in a ground assault so your buddies in the Hueys can land safely... stuff like that.

[Apocalypse31]

On 1/8/2023 at 7:51 PM, Captain Orso said:

I think the very first question is really, do people really come to DCS to drive tanks?

Yes, absolutely. But I also feel like I'm just waiting for CA to see some improvements.....patiently....since 2011. 

 

In real life ground combat will always be the most important domain in the multiple domains of combat. Despite what most DCS players think, the air component will always be a supporting operation to the land component within any Joint Task Force. That's just how it is. Seizing and retaining terrain will always be the most important part of war. 

 

I believe that DCS has a game engine that has potential for large-scale, combined arms combat. I own a bunch of aircraft modules but I mostly find flying to be boring and tedious. However, but the idea of commanding large formations and operations that integrates combined arms is more interesting to me than anything.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Apocalypse31

[Captain Orso]

Thanks for the answers, guys.

So CA should basically play exactly like Arma III or War Thunder, but realistic. But the AI should control everything, down to the last man, unless someone wants to directly control a unit.

I haven't played any FPSes in years, but back in the day, none of them had any AI worth its weight in salt. Maybe today things are different, but idk.

CA today feels more like a shooting gallery than ground combat simulation. AI cannot be allowed to move units, bc it would crash the game, so units are really just targets with no actual purpose. I think if the battlefield were populated realistically with units that actually act intelligently, wandering the battlegrounds as a rogue JTAC looking for lose targets will not really be viable. It will succumb to its real-world place on the battlefield, just one more cog in the machine. Besides, just because you can see a target, does not mean it is worthy of engaging it with CAS assets. The battlefield still drastically needs a battlefield commander--whether player or AI--who decides where to attack and when, and not the other way around.

[Captain Orso]

I wonder if ED can also make the battlefield environment as realistic for CA as other FPS. I'm guessing that LOD might be able to deal with that, so that only CA units see such a level of detail, but then again, every helicopter and aircraft on the ground would have to be included. Would that be an issue? I mean Arma III does that basically on every server with 30 or 60 players, afaik, without being forced to their knees, so theoretically DCS ought to be able to do it too, but with an LOD break once aircraft get above a certain altitude. I think I'd sh*t myself if we ever had that LOD.

[Apocalypse31]

4 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Thanks for the answers, guys.

So CA should basically play exactly like Arma III or War Thunder, but realistic. But the AI should control everything, down to the last man, unless someone wants to directly control a unit.

I haven't played any FPSes in years, but back in the day, none of them had any AI worth its weight in salt. Maybe today things are different, but idk.

CA today feels more like a shooting gallery than ground combat simulation. AI cannot be allowed to move units, bc it would crash the game, so units are really just targets with no actual purpose. I think if the battlefield were populated realistically with units that actually act intelligently, wandering the battlegrounds as a rogue JTAC looking for lose targets will not really be viable. It will succumb to its real-world place on the battlefield, just one more cog in the machine. Besides, just because you can see a target, does not mean it is worthy of engaging it with CAS assets. The battlefield still drastically needs a battlefield commander--whether player or AI--who decides where to attack and when, and not the other way around.

I'd rather see the game have its foundations as a Real Time Strategy game with First/Third person elements mixed in. 

I want to be able to click on a unit and give it orders like you would in any RTS and then watch my units actually do the thing I gave it orders to do. Then I want to be able to jump into first person and control the vehicle - I think the game, Call to Arms: Gates of Hell, does this really well on a very small scale. 

 

Most games that focus on first/third person like ARMA struggle with 'command options' and also require a LOT of people to do....anything. I call these "1:1 Scale" games. I'd rather see Tactical Commanders actually doing.....exactly that; tactically commanding things. But also give the players the option to jump in and pull the trigger when they feel like it. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Apocalypse31

[SparxOne]

On 1/10/2023 at 7:00 PM, Apocalypse31 said:

I'd rather see the game have its foundations as a Real Time Strategy game with First/Third person elements mixed in. 

I want to be able to click on a unit and give it orders like you would in any RTS and then watch my units actually do the thing I gave it orders to do. Then I want to be able to jump into first person and control the vehicle - I think the game, Call to Arms: Gates of Hell, does this really well on a very small scale. 

 

Most games that focus on first/third person like ARMA struggle with 'command options' and also require a LOT of people to do....anything. I call these "1:1 Scale" games. I'd rather see Tactical Commanders actually doing.....exactly that; tactically commanding things. But also give the players the option to jump in and pull the trigger when they feel like it. 

 

This is how i also believe Combined Arms should be developped further. At first i am more into the First/Third person element, i really enjoy using Combined Arms that way, but i feel the Real Time Strategy element added would make it quite enjoyable throughout anyway ! 

 

Hopefully that is something planned with the coming of the Dynamic Campaign, from what i read on the Dynamic Campaign Newsletter on the 30th of Decemeber 2022 ->

"When a campaign starts, the strategic AI initiates the tasking process (ATO Air Tasking Orders, Ground tasking and Naval Tasking etc) for each unit in the side’s asset list and order of battle. This process of tasking and decision making is ongoing for the duration of the campaign and is a function of assets remaining and reinforcement and resupply cycles. It is important to remember that the player can take control of any AI unit and participate in its mission task and/or take indirect control over the strategic AI decisions, in addition to direct control over specific tasking orders." 

The line i've bolded and made Italic hopefully sounds and ends up being what we're looking for, the mix between RTS and First/Third person control. Let's wait and see if that will actually be close to our wishes  
Can't wait to see how Combined Arms is integrated with the Dynamic Campaign, i've always imagined myself being able to control what ever unit on the map while it is doing whatever task, say a TOW Humvee approaching a town with a few targets of opportunity, you able to manually drive it now and use the TOW as you wish, when you're done doing that, leave the control back to the AI and slot in an Apache and fly in that town for CAS cover, scenarios will be so dynamic (no pun intended), it will hopefully make it feel like an actual war being alive and ongoing, not the typical static defensive units we see all the time.
 

[Apocalypse31]

On 1/11/2023 at 5:09 PM, SparxOne said:

Hopefully that is something planned with the coming of the Dynamic Campaign

It won't matter what the Dynamic Campaign looks like if the Combined Arms pathfinding and unit control is still completely borked....and right now the RTS aspect of combined arms is not good. 

[SparxOne]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:45 AM, Apocalypse31 said:

It won't matter what the Dynamic Campaign looks like if the Combined Arms pathfinding and unit control is still completely borked....and right now the RTS aspect of combined arms is not good. 

Of coarse that's a legitimate feeling, which i have too, but who knows what they have planned with the coming of the Dynamic Campaign (And i'm hoping they do have something) ? Maybe they'll have an AI pathfinding overhaul and/or a revamp of the unit control too. 

I mean, they are most probably aware just like you and me how bad these areas are, what good would it make to the so long awaited Dynamic Campaign if these areas were still as bad as they are ? How would the Dynamic Campaign even properly handle a campaign if the AI could hardly handle the pathfinding ? It must be something they worked on/ or is planned before the release of it.

[Captain Orso]

One of my biggest worries is that an FP gamer might easily break an otherwise balanced mission. Humans always find a way to exploit things the engine doesn't understand or expect, thus making mission creation impossible. Generally these are just things a real human with just ONE Real-Life™ would never do.

There has been much care and interest invested in AI aircraft over many years, and yet ED has only just recently fixed some major conceptual errors (AI pilots who ALWAYS fly with technical Perfection, no matter what, but use the same foolish maneuver over and over again).

Why should I expect them to get the CA AI working anywhere near the level required to go toe-to-toe with a human player and all his shenanigans without many years of development. In my mind, making the AI human-opponent-resistant will cost huge sums in time and money, for something very few people will actually use.

[JB3DG]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:16 PM, Captain Orso said:

Generally these are just things a real human with just ONE Real-Life™ would never do.

Like the time I shot the wing off an A-10 with the main barrel of a T-80?

[Captain Orso]

Apparently a German Panzer actually did shoot down a Russian airplane once. It was during the Kurland battle and the Russians were constantly flying the exact same path to attack some nearby position, so the gunner knew exactly where the aircraft would fly and just had to time pulling the trigger at the right moment. But that was a once in a life-time kind of thing.

There are always an enormous number of ways to break games. It will never be possible to eliminate them all, bc people will always find a way.

I contend that ED will never make a good FPS of CA, bc to make a good FPS they would have to hire a development staff at least the size of what they have now doing aircraft and start rebuilding every map to be as good as something like one of the Battlefield games or COD. Hell, I would like to see ground detail and look anywhere near what BF3 offers and that's over 10 years old.

IF ED managed to do that they would have--by a multitude--the larargest FPS map in gaming history, and the last time ED updated the Caucasus map, they dumbed down objects and textures to appease the Frame-Rate gods.

And parallel they would have to redo every vehicle to give them something like the at the very minimum the same quality the Flaming Cliffs aircraft have, for a FPS, and that's never going to happen.

If ED came anywhere near to what Eugen Systems did with Wargame Red Dragon (land only) without the arcadeiness - just the interface and control - that would be more than anyone could ever expect, and I think it would server everyone well. It would bring the ground-war into the game so that it would really mean something more that just offering targets for aircraft.

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Hell, I would like to see ground detail and look anywhere near what BF3 offers and that's over 10 years old.

You're still comparing to AAA arcade FPS. Different games - different goals. Even if we see such graphics one day in DCS ground level the FPS standards will be another 10 years ahead. CA needs new possibilities and AI improvements, not eye candy.

[Captain Orso]

That statement was purely about graphics. If you're going to make a FPS then make it at least worth while, and not akin to 1995's Jane's Longbow in ground graphics. You know what would suck? If they made every vehicle to specification and to run at level of detail as with the aircraft--which means you get to learn them all, just like with the aircraft--and then you look outside your Abrahams through the commander's hatch and everything looks like a vector graphic.

If you compare the Caucasus map to the Syria map, or what we are seeing from the Egypt map, the Caucasus map is abysmal at best. But even the Syria map is a poor example of a FPS map.

Anything worth doing, is worth doing right.

I cannot think that ED will ever do it right with regards to CA, as long as CA includes being an FPS. Every cent spent on CA as an FPS, is a cent thrown out the window, and will only benefit 20 people to spend an hour per year doing it and they paid for CA already 10 years ago - my conjecture.

Stop trying to be everything for everyone all at once, and you will have a fighting chance of achieving your goals. 

[draconus]

10 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

You know what would suck? If they made every vehicle to specification and to run at level of detail as with the aircraft--which means you get to learn them all, just like with the aircraft--and then you look outside your Abrahams through the commander's hatch and everything looks like a vector graphic.

DCS is already vector graphics - what do you mean? You meant the 90s level of detail? And how would tank hatch view differ from our aircraft view with regards to cockpit vs outside world?

You have some idea that it should be "done right" - ok, but you need whole new game for that and it's not going to happen.

Edited February 21, 2023 by draconus

[Captain Orso]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

DCS is already vector graphics - what do you mean? You meant the 90s level of detail? And how would tank hatch view differ from the our aircraft view with regards to cockpit vs outside world?

The difference is, that at 10k feet while flying at 450 kn you CANNOT see the lack of detail and fidelity on the ground. In helos it's different, but when your virtual feet are on the ground, looking in windows and seeing the LOD of the ground, roads, fields, everything has an entirely different meaning.

Let me pose a question, why do you want ED to flesh-out CA to make it like an FPS? If you want to play an FPS, why don't you play something like ARMA 3 or similar - games which already have a far higher quality on the ground than DCS, and possibly better that DCS ever will?

9 hours ago, draconus said:

You have some idea that it should be "done right" - ok, but you need whole new game for that and it's not going to happen.

CA already has the basis for controlling and fighting ground troops from the F10 map. This is extremely rudimentary and buggy beyond what an alpha release ought to present.

If you want to say that giving CA a modern and viable UI and function would be akin to creating a new game, then doing that--which ED has already indicated--PLUS making a worthy FPS out of it will be like creating TWO new games out of CA.

I happen to agree that re-doing CA WILL be like creating a completely new game, but could be made into something that 1) could stand on its own and be worth playing without person flow aircraft, and 2) something which will give the air game a purpose beyond air battles for air battle's sake.

I want to see CA be something fun and challenging to do, and not challenging from the aspect simply dealing with the UI.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

The difference is, that at 10k feet while flying at 450 kn you CANNOT see the lack of detail and fidelity on the ground. In helos it's different, but when your virtual feet are on the ground, looking in windows and seeing the LOD of the ground, roads, fields, everything has an entirely different meaning.

Unless you run only Instant Action all aircraft start on the ground or crowded carrier deck so we CAN see it every mission. It can be made better but it's not the main goal in DCS and always come with performance cost. Also the maps differ already in quality.

2 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Let me pose a question, why do you want ED to flesh-out CA to make it like an FPS? If you want to play an FPS, why don't you play something like ARMA 3 or similar - games which already have a far higher quality on the ground than DCS, and possibly better that DCS ever will?

And I can ask you why do you want RTS game in DCS while there are countless titles that do it better. It's just my preference and I want CA to go that direction (simulation) while you want another. That's all fine.

Edited February 21, 2023 by draconus

[Silver_Dragon]

43 minutes ago, draconus said:

And I can ask you why do you want RTS game in DCS while there are countless titles that do it better. It's just my preference and I want CA to go that direction (simulation) while you want another. That's all fine.

ED has building a RTS / Dinamic Campaign from some years ago with a dedicated tema. Build a FPS require rewrite great part of the DCS Core, build new funtionality and make "pilotable" / realistic damage model / and First Person Shooter with dedicated FPS / Vehicle teams make all from the scratch. That is not a easy task and ED was talk from years ago with can need a military / professional contract to build them yet.

[Captain Orso]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Unless you run only Instant Action all aircraft start on the ground or crowded carrier deck so we CAN see it every mission. It can be made better but it's not the main goal in DCS and always come with performance cost. Also the maps differ already in quality.

But to give the SuperCarrier and all the airfields on every map really good eye candy would be ten thousand times easier than doing it over then entirety of every map. I'll even throw FARPs and FARP equipment and personnel, and it will still be nine thousand nine hundred and ninety eight times easier.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

And I can ask you why do you want RTS game in DCS while there are countless titles that do it better. It's just my preference and I want CA to go that direction (simulation) while you want another. That's all fine.

The difference is, ED MUSST fix CA to be much better if the Dynamic Campaign is to be any good. There's no getting around it.

Fixing the FPS aspect of CA is not necessary for the Dynamic Campaign at all, but will coast time, money, and resources, and it will work against the DC, because the DC needs to AI the units for it to work, and someone just taking over this or that unit and doing whatever with it, will mess with the AI's plan and control.

33 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED has building a RTS / Dinamic Campaign from some years ago with a dedicated tema. Build a FPS require rewrite great part of the DCS Core, build new funtionality and make "pilotable" / realistic damage model / and First Person Shooter with dedicated FPS / Vehicle teams make all from the scratch. That is not a easy task and ED was talk from years ago with can need a military / professional contract to build them yet.

CA basically is an RTS. It's just so poorly done as such that it is not recognizable as an RTS. Maybe they never even thought of it on that scale, but there it is anyway.

I'm really hoping that DC will be a good solution, not just for campaigns, but also for single missions using the AI to enhance them. That's what I'm really hoping.