So what were the improvements for 2025 & beyond?

[Ripcord]

OK we just saw the 2025 and Beyond hype video drop, and while the F-35 discussion is dominating the airwaves, please don't think we didn't notice the improved/upgraded ground troop motion.

Can somebody from ED pull back the curtain and share a bit on this?  Maybe let us know what is brewing?

 

 

And when I went back to dig up that image, I just saw this from MW --

 

First 25 questions answer but there will be another 25 questions in about a month from now... Thanks Matt W.

Edited January 18 by Ripcord

[rcjonessnp175]

Yup it’s the most exciting thing for me as well as the dynamic campaign.

[hauntersix]

I am very hyped for this too. Few of my friends prefer to play as troops and tanks while i give air support. Combined arms is looooong over due for a upgrade, and i hope it will come very soon

[KrptosZh]

CA need update,  bugs are everywhere

[MADLOU1]

When are we going to get the new F-47?

[Kang]

To be honest, in my opinion the quality of the animations is currently the least of CA's problems.

[Silver_Dragon]

Let's keep several points in mind:
- The infantry animations come from the work done with the supercarrier's deck crew, not CA.
- The dynamic campaign is a completely different team outside from CA.

None of these points have anything to do with Combined Arms, so I wouldn't recommend getting your hopes up.

In fact, from what has been said, there hasn't been any work on CA in years. Neither the English nor the Russian forums respond to any questions about improvements. They're just going to tell us the usual: that it's a closed product and not to expect any updates.

There are a lot of bugs to fix, yes, but they're not a priority. In fact, any functionality outside of CA, whether infantry, vehicle movement, etc., will be in the core.

Actually, a few days ago, I found Wags' post on the old SimHQ forum, which discussed "plans" for CA, back in 2012... unfortunately, 13 years later, none of the talk has come to fruition, so I'm very pessimistic about it. Let's also remember when Wags asked about information on an M1 tank, which ended up at the bottom of a drawer.

There are many things that, unfortunately, we could make a very long list of "promises":
- Paratroopers.
- Realistic infantry formations.
- Infantry support weapons.
- Realistic troop transport.
- Artillery ammunitions.
And although new infantry troops have appeared since the CH-47 videos, my assessment is as follows:
- Until ED no confirms it and we don't see a video of said functionality, it's highly recommended not to even think about it. It's that simple.

ED needs people dedicated to the ground environment, not an engineer you replace once every five years to implement an incomplete feature. Someone like dedicated engineers who are working on the dynamic campaign or the spherical world, but focused on creating exclusive full-time features for the ground environment, whether it's infantry, vehicles, and weapons (the "famous" artillery munitions that were never seen again, as an example).

I know Wags does this with the best of intentions, but we also can't always have the same Q&A videos every year or two, if they're not going to answer simulator questions. The last person who talked about "plans" was Nick Grey at the end of 2023... when he talked about WW2 plans... the rest is utter obscurity, especially now that, starting this year, there isn't even a list of "plans" in January, now vanished.

We'll see what the future holds, but as I said, CA is not in my plans for anything else in the future due to ED.

[draconus]

21 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

In fact, from what has been said, there hasn't been any work on CA in years.

I know what you mean but that's not entirely true. Don't forget many drivable units we got recently with Massun92 pack, MaxxxPro, M1A2, C-RAM, T-72B3, etc. and some bugs are squashed from time to time. Never enough for us, I know.
btw: I see your english greatly improved

[Silver_Dragon]

Google Translate has improved a lot.

Look, Massun92's assistance pack, even though it allows you to drive vehicles, isn't part of CA; it's an external add-on, and it doesn't provide any new functionality. And yes, the problem with CA is that it's "dead"... they've fixed some, but the module hasn't changed. Not only is there no longer a "roadmap," they don't even mention that anything is being planned at all. I also don't see copying and pasting the UH-1 troop transport functionality into vehicles as an improvement; it's something we've had for nearly 10 years.....

That's why I'm complaining. We all know that with just the slightest bit of care put into this module, great things could be achieved. Especially when we have the dynamic campaign just around the corner, and combined arms operations are going to have to have a tremendous twist, or the ground environment will be very lackluster.

And I understand. I know that touching on land issues will put you in the crosshairs of licenses and lawsuits, but moving forward with implementing certain features would win you a lot of points. Unfortunately, it's the same old story: there's no time, no resources, and no plans. The same thing is happening with WW2. We have Marianas WW2, but there's still no real landing feature (air or naval), and so on and so forth. The problem is that they're always "priorities," and in this case, they always come last.

[draconus]

48 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

even though it allows you to drive vehicles, isn't part of CA

And what is part of CA? It's mainly possibility of driving vehicles, shooting plus commanding orders to other units. That's it. CA grows with almost every ground unit added to DCS (excluding the recently added Japan vehicles, which are not drivable somehow). So is WW2 with F4U, Marianas, Japan units and planned PTO pack. Yes, no new features planned for now.

Edited July 1 by draconus

[MAXsenna]

Google Translate has improved a lot.
Look, Massun92's assistance pack, even though it allows you to drive vehicles, isn't part of CA; it's an external add-on, and it doesn't provide any new functionality. And yes, the problem with CA is that it's "dead"... they've fixed some, but the module hasn't changed. Not only is there no longer a "roadmap," they don't even mention that anything is being planned at all. I also don't see copying and pasting the UH-1 troop transport functionality into vehicles as an improvement; it's something we've had for nearly 10 years.....
That's why I'm complaining. We all know that with just the slightest bit of care put into this module, great things could be achieved. Especially when we have the dynamic campaign just around the corner, and combined arms operations are going to have to have a tremendous twist, or the ground environment will be very lackluster.
And I understand. I know that touching on land issues will put you in the crosshairs of licenses and lawsuits, but moving forward with implementing certain features would win you a lot of points. Unfortunately, it's the same old story: there's no time, no resources, and no plans. The same thing is happening with WW2. We have Marianas WW2, but there's still no real landing feature (air or naval), and so on and so forth. The problem is that they're always "priorities," and in this case, they always come last.

Well said!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk