DCS: Afghanistan What can I do?

[Pikey]

Where did all the old Afghanistan posts go? Specifically looking for the ones that debated whether this map was "interesting" and what type of games we could come up with, as a community.

What's the attraction of an Afganistan map as a location for a 'game'?

• For aircraft targetting infantry, the infantry we have are of mediocre animation for the best ones, the ground AI routines have much less detail than a plane AI.
• For aircraft targetting vehicles we have some good new additions, but we are talking only 2 shapes of three types - arty, technical and airdefence. Thats 6 units out of the entire catalogue of DCS.
• For aircraft vs aircraft - nothing to simulate.
• For sea or ships - nothing to simulate.
• No offensive radars of any type to avoid/destroy.

If you just want a sandbox (no pun intended) and don't care what's simulated then there are still better places to do that, that aren't confined to a place with limited existing infastructure.

If you actually want a 'game' then the Balkans conflict in the mid 90's ticks every box -

• Soviet era peer equipment
• Large US base Aviano Italy
• Varied and beautiful (green and mountainous) scenery
• Era allows DCS inventory modelled
• Historical depth and detail
• Air vs Air, ground vs ground, Carrier ops

Balkans was my age groups Afghanistan, for a period of modelling warfare, its much moire suited to DCS strengths and offers something different.

 

[norman99]

Couldn’t agree more Pikey. A Balkans map similar to the other sim, but with some additional eastern terrain would be amazing.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Pikey said:

Where did all the old Afghanistan posts go? Specifically looking for the ones that debated whether this map was "interesting" and what type of games we could come up with, as a community.

They were deleted for allegedly being offtopic. Apparently this kind of discussion is more suited to the wishlist.

Edited March 23 by Northstar98

[Mr_Burns]

I love more terrain but I keep harping back to this, the Combined Arms/Ground vehicle/soldier/building interaction is woefully lacking IMO.

Flight dynamics, dog fighting, anti armour/radar is all top notch, but there is something lacking in base terrain demolition.

Runway cratering, setting up a UAV to watch for a vehicle and report in the building so you can PGM it just always feels lacking.

for some reason I prefer ground pounding but it always feels scripted, a dog fight seems to have multiple outcomes depending on your fight, whether is is with the A-10 or F/A 18 or now F-15, it feels like there is a lower immersion for it.

 

I am hoping the dynamic campaign will help but I would have thought decent destructible land scapes should come before Dynamic Missions.

[Temetre]

vor 41 Minuten schrieb Mr_Burns:

I love more terrain but I keep harping back to this, the Combined Arms/Ground vehicle/soldier/building interaction is woefully lacking IMO.

Flight dynamics, dog fighting, anti armour/radar is all top notch, but there is something lacking in base terrain demolition.

Runway cratering, setting up a UAV to watch for a vehicle and report in the building so you can PGM it just always feels lacking.

for some reason I prefer ground pounding but it always feels scripted, a dog fight seems to have multiple outcomes depending on your fight, whether is is with the A-10 or F/A 18 or now F-15, it feels like there is a lower immersion for it.

 

I am hoping the dynamic campaign will help but I would have thought decent destructible land scapes should come before Dynamic Missions.

Tbh as muhc as I love destructible terrain in games, its usually very difficult to make work technically and performance wise. Especially in massive open world games as DCS.

Stuff like runway destruction shouldnt be as difficult tbf.

Edited March 28 by Temetre

[Arennord]

Even though I believe destructible terrain will never come to DCS due to it being a huge technical challenge, I think that runway cratering could be feasible, as it implies just a small part of terrain that would need to be reworked to do that.

I'd love to be able to manage UAVs though, that would be awesome, even more when the dynamic campaign comes, so we could send a reconaissance mission to report some coordinates and footage to us in order to do proper briefing and mission planning. That feature alone would drastically improve the game for me, and I guess that a lot of people would agree on this too.

[durka-durka]

2 hours ago, Arennord said:

Even though I believe destructible terrain will never come to DCS due to it being a huge technical challenge, I think that runway cratering could be feasible, as it implies just a small part of terrain that would need to be reworked to do that.

I'd love to be able to manage UAVs though, that would be awesome, even more when the dynamic campaign comes, so we could send a reconaissance mission to report some coordinates and footage to us in order to do proper briefing and mission planning. That feature alone would drastically improve the game for me, and I guess that a lot of people would agree on this too.

 

Yeah, I think a recon aspect would be amazing. Especially for groups that really like to plan their missions.  Currently, my group is using the F-15e as a recon asset, using the RCD function on the TPod to take pictures and get coordinates. Then they do Battle Damage Assessments after the mission if available.  Having a Reaper up in the air would be really fun. 

When it comes to ground assets, we seem to still be in a computing generation where it's either/or.  For instance, ARMA is great at ground simming, but lacks the full fidelity of flight like DCS.  Some day they'll combine and it'll be glorious.

[Exorcet]

I see it as a map like any other. By offering unique terrain it has value. My biggest concerns at the moment are size, airbase layout, and the availability of water for carriers. If historical Afghanistan in DCS doesn't seem appealing, then create a fictional scenario.

[Beirut]

8 hours ago, Exorcet said:

If historical Afghanistan in DCS doesn't seem appealing, then create a fictional scenario.

 

Welcome to my world. 

 

Every flight through the wonderful mission editor. Afghanistan will be no different.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 3/23/2024 at 2:26 PM, Pikey said:

Where did all the old Afghanistan posts go? Specifically looking for the ones that debated whether this map was "interesting" and what type of games we could come up with, as a community.

What's the attraction of an Afganistan map as a location for a 'game'?

• For aircraft targetting infantry, the infantry we have are of mediocre animation for the best ones, the ground AI routines have much less detail than a plane AI.
• For aircraft targetting vehicles we have some good new additions, but we are talking only 2 shapes of three types - arty, technical and airdefence. Thats 6 units out of the entire catalogue of DCS.

 

Remember ED has working on new animations to infantry on the core. Old Soviet equipment has planned by ED, but now has not a date to release, has many old content of LOMAC / FC to update.

Quote

 

Infantry Unit Improvements. We will be working on new infantry models and animations in 2024 along with more life-like behaviors.

New Air, Ground, and Naval Units. New units will be available in 2024 that will range from World War II to modern day. Each unit requires thousands of man-hours to create and will be provided as optional packs at their highest levels of detail. Standard versions will also be available for free to ensure both single-player and multiplayer compatibility for all.

 

 

[nick10]

We need the Kiowa quick. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, nick10 said:

We need the Kiowa quick. 

Why? DCS ground units and AI are pretty bad.

Like the whole air to ground interaction systems of units under air attack is terrible. 

DCS mission maker issues aside where they park a tank/infantry platoon in the middle of an empty field aside. Once attacked those vehicles/infantry should be moving as rapidly as possible to actual cover (where they would have been IRL anyway). 

DCS AI gunnery for non radar guided AAA is absurd. The BMP-1 or 2 are still better than dedicated AAA platforms like the shilka, and every guy with an unstabilized 50 cal is vasiliy zaitsev. 

And never mind stuff like shorads vs fast jets. Literally unless a unit is notified by radio or have their  own radar running, they have almost no chance to react to a fast jet attack IRL. There is literally no time to react to something coming in at 500mph. and most infantry shorads basically need like 30 secs (it varies) to actually cool the seeker and get ready to fire, assuming they actually hear/see the jet coming in the first place. But in DCS AI spotting is perternatural levels of vision and SA, all AI units immediately know where you are and immediately begin to direct insanely accurate ground fire at you. Instead of doing what would actually do IRL which is run for cover.

Never mind the actual after effects of CBU-ing  a set of units. They literally do-not care unless you actually fully destroy the unit, there is no morale, no shock of "holy cow" we almost just died. Just T1000 levels of determination to kill you. 

These problems have been major issues for years as well, so I have 0 faith that ED will do anything to actually improve this systems, or things like SAM's in DCS which are also variously broken.

You'd think for a game where the critical pieces are the bombing things or getting shot at by sams that it would actually have a higher priority to make it more realistic but its just not and never really has been.

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember ED has working on new animations to infantry on the core. Old Soviet equipment has planned by ED, but now has not a date to release, has many old content of LOMAC / FC to update.

 

Who actually cares about animations? I mean the only thing there is so ED can post some  replica "kill videos" from GWOT in some trailer, which is tacky and in poor taste at best.

Actually modeling realistic AI behavior should 10,000x more important. Same with "gunnery" effects.   I can guarantee you private snuffy or mr tank commander's first priority is not having a showdown at the O.K. corral with enemy helo or ground attack jet, their first priority is getting under cover where they won't get murdered by enemy air, and let the attached ADA detachment deal with it.

As for soviet units, yeah we desperately need older SAM systems that are the most commonly used  ones in the world, but we have needed them for a decade and still nothing.

[Exorcet]

59 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Why? DCS ground units and AI are pretty bad.

Like the whole air to ground interaction systems of units under air attack is terrible.

For what its worth, DCS does have enough tools to make ground combat not completely sterile, but the stumbling block there is that it relies on the mission creator to do everything and it can be a lot of work.

Also while a lot of what you said is true, not everything goes as it should in the real world. Yes, ground units probably shouldn't be standing out in the open somewhere, but mistakes or just plain bad judgement can be made. Making AI human intelligent is a tall task, though hopefully that will change in the near future with recent AI developments, so we do have to work with expectations less than perfect.

Just in case, I will also stress that I don't think DCS is free of problems at all. Some are pretty glaring too. The problems should be pointed out to ED to address, but we also have to compromise a little with the reality that DCS is complex.

[Stratos]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:44 PM, Harlikwin said:

Why? DCS ground units and AI are pretty bad.

Like the whole air to ground interaction systems of units under air attack is terrible. 

DCS mission maker issues aside where they park a tank/infantry platoon in the middle of an empty field aside. Once attacked those vehicles/infantry should be moving as rapidly as possible to actual cover (where they would have been IRL anyway). 

DCS AI gunnery for non radar guided AAA is absurd. The BMP-1 or 2 are still better than dedicated AAA platforms like the shilka, and every guy with an unstabilized 50 cal is vasiliy zaitsev. 

And never mind stuff like shorads vs fast jets. Literally unless a unit is notified by radio or have their  own radar running, they have almost no chance to react to a fast jet attack IRL. There is literally no time to react to something coming in at 500mph. and most infantry shorads basically need like 30 secs (it varies) to actually cool the seeker and get ready to fire, assuming they actually hear/see the jet coming in the first place. But in DCS AI spotting is perternatural levels of vision and SA, all AI units immediately know where you are and immediately begin to direct insanely accurate ground fire at you. Instead of doing what would actually do IRL which is run for cover.

Never mind the actual after effects of CBU-ing  a set of units. They literally do-not care unless you actually fully destroy the unit, there is no morale, no shock of "holy cow" we almost just died. Just T1000 levels of determination to kill you. 

These problems have been major issues for years as well, so I have 0 faith that ED will do anything to actually improve this systems, or things like SAM's in DCS which are also variously broken.

You'd think for a game where the critical pieces are the bombing things or getting shot at by sams that it would actually have a higher priority to make it more realistic but its just not and never really has been.

Who actually cares about animations? I mean the only thing there is so ED can post some  replica "kill videos" from GWOT in some trailer, which is tacky and in poor taste at best.

Actually modeling realistic AI behavior should 10,000x more important. Same with "gunnery" effects.   I can guarantee you private snuffy or mr tank commander's first priority is not having a showdown at the O.K. corral with enemy helo or ground attack jet, their first priority is getting under cover where they won't get murdered by enemy air, and let the attached ADA detachment deal with it.

As for soviet units, yeah we desperately need older SAM systems that are the most commonly used  ones in the world, but we have needed them for a decade and still nothing.

Neatly explained, ED should take a look at this!

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

Neatly explained, ED should take a look at this!

No need, we have stated this will be addressed in the future, please keep the topic on Afghanistan and what kind of missions you can do. If you have bug reports to make on other aspects of DCS there are places for this.

Thanks

On 3/29/2024 at 8:44 AM, Harlikwin said:

Why? DCS ground units and AI are pretty bad.

Like the whole air to ground interaction systems of units under air attack is terrible. 

DCS mission maker issues aside where they park a tank/infantry platoon in the middle of an empty field aside. Once attacked those vehicles/infantry should be moving as rapidly as possible to actual cover (where they would have been IRL anyway). 

DCS AI gunnery for non radar guided AAA is absurd. The BMP-1 or 2 are still better than dedicated AAA platforms like the shilka, and every guy with an unstabilized 50 cal is vasiliy zaitsev. 

And never mind stuff like shorads vs fast jets. Literally unless a unit is notified by radio or have their  own radar running, they have almost no chance to react to a fast jet attack IRL. There is literally no time to react to something coming in at 500mph. and most infantry shorads basically need like 30 secs (it varies) to actually cool the seeker and get ready to fire, assuming they actually hear/see the jet coming in the first place. But in DCS AI spotting is perternatural levels of vision and SA, all AI units immediately know where you are and immediately begin to direct insanely accurate ground fire at you. Instead of doing what would actually do IRL which is run for cover.

Never mind the actual after effects of CBU-ing  a set of units. They literally do-not care unless you actually fully destroy the unit, there is no morale, no shock of "holy cow" we almost just died. Just T1000 levels of determination to kill you. 

These problems have been major issues for years as well, so I have 0 faith that ED will do anything to actually improve this systems, or things like SAM's in DCS which are also variously broken.

You'd think for a game where the critical pieces are the bombing things or getting shot at by sams that it would actually have a higher priority to make it more realistic but its just not and never really has been.

Who actually cares about animations? I mean the only thing there is so ED can post some  replica "kill videos" from GWOT in some trailer, which is tacky and in poor taste at best.

Actually modeling realistic AI behavior should 10,000x more important. Same with "gunnery" effects.   I can guarantee you private snuffy or mr tank commander's first priority is not having a showdown at the O.K. corral with enemy helo or ground attack jet, their first priority is getting under cover where they won't get murdered by enemy air, and let the attached ADA detachment deal with it.

As for soviet units, yeah we desperately need older SAM systems that are the most commonly used  ones in the world, but we have needed them for a decade and still nothing.

We have repeatedly stated this will be addressed, smarter AI requires a lot of work and the performance to handle it. In the meantime there are plenty of options in the Mission Editor to address most of this.

At any rate please stay on topic, this is about things to do in Afghanistan, not bug reports for other aspects of DCS.

Thanks

[Beirut]

Map + Plane + Mission Editor = Everything is just fine. 

[KoN]

Its a welcome map to have . Plenty of conflicts to research and act out . I'm sure most of us know that history. 

We have the correct equipment to play on . 

[Mr_Burns]

DCS Atilla the Hun?

(My history lessons were garbage).

[buceador]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:44 PM, Harlikwin said:

Just T1000 levels of determination to kill you.