We need more crew-served weapons

[Speed]

It would be great if we got some crew-served weapons in DCS such as motors, machine guns, towed artillery, recoilless rifles, etc. Additionally, I donno if it falls under the definition of "crew-served weapon" but ATGMs such as the Javelin would be a great addition! Infantry in DCS is woefully unequipped right now.

 

These kinds of weapons play a HUGE part in conflicts being fought all over the world (motors and rockets being a primary weapon of insurgents everywhere), but apart from the ZU-23 and maybe MANPADs (if those are classed under the catagory of "crew-served") we are lacking. Furthermore, the best firepower that infantry currently gets, RPGs, are quite often useless because attacking infantry carrying RPGs stop way outside of RPG range and just sit there till they get gunned down. Their AI has been like that since Black Shark, at least.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Speed

[OutOnTheOP]

I agree in principle, that would be a great idea... but I'm unconvinced it matters just yet. How are you going to know the difference from an aircraft? Why would it matter? Ultimately, the only way it influences the player is a) their ability to engage the player aircraft, in which case the difference between an AK47 and an PKM doesn't really matter, as they will rarely have the opportunity to engage with 30+ rounds straight, or b) if it is critical to engage them to accomplish a mission, in which case a group of riflemen can be scripted to be "mortarmen". You'll need a good JTAC talk-on to find them anyway, so it's not as if having seperate mortars will be that big an issue.

Now, when we start seeing DCS: Tank Commander or DCS: Infantry Platoon Leader, it'll be critical. Until then, not so much.

[Speed]

Sorry to dig this up, but I just remember this post and I'm surprised to find this attitude:

 

I agree in principle, that would be a great idea... but I'm unconvinced it matters just yet. How are you going to know the difference from an aircraft? Why would it matter? Ultimately, the only way it influences the player is a) their ability to engage the player aircraft, in which case the difference between an AK47 and an PKM doesn't really matter, as they will rarely have the opportunity to engage with 30+ rounds straight, or b) if it is critical to engage them to accomplish a mission, in which case a group of riflemen can be scripted to be "mortarmen". You'll need a good JTAC talk-on to find them anyway, so it's not as if having seperate mortars will be that big an issue.

Now, when we start seeing DCS: Tank Commander or DCS: Infantry Platoon Leader, it'll be critical. Until then, not so much.

 

You do realize that the A-10C is a Close Air Support aircraft?! Anything that affects the ground battle directly affects how you have to support the ground forces. In a mission I'm working on, you absolutely have to engage enemy artillery first or it will annhilate friendly ground forces. The artillery is so effective due to an extensive lua script I'm working on that makes them automatically engage enemy targets (you could get similar behavior with the trigger system, but it would actually be more work). So, a change in what is effectively AI greatly impacts how you have to perform your CAS role.

IRL, the A-10C spends all almost all its time supporting infantry. We don't do this much in DCS greatly in part due to the poor infantry simulation- and this includes the lack of crew-served weapons. Furthermore, crew served weapons include things like towed arty and AAA guns, which make huge differences in the ground and air battles, respectively.

 

Basically, in DCS A-10C, if you think that it only matters if something can shoot at you means you either haven't flown very many good missions, or if you have, you've got pretty poor situation awareness as to how and why certain things on the ground are unfolding. It's probably the former, and not the latter, as for a long time now, making an actual ground battle where things like crew served weapons would make a difference would just give you loads of CTDs. Seems to be fixed now.

 

Hmm... and if "it doesn't shoot at you, it doesn't matter" attitude was true... hell, why don't I just orbit at angels 27 and then the whole misssion won't matter? Hell, why bother taking off, if you sit at the air base, they can't shoot you.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Speed

[Grimes]

In the context of the current infantry in the sim I don't think it would matter to much. The scope of AI capabilities doesn't fit what infantry are capable of, it fits what armor and vehicles are capable of. Infantry not just lack weapons options, but they lack the mobility and ability to easily hide from their enemies. These issues would need to be addressed before seriously improving how AI operate. That said it would be nice to see some more infantry based defenses that can actually hurt vehicles. I realize we have vehicle based equivalent for pretty much anything an infantry could carry or in terms of towed weapons, but infantry based solutions would add an extra layer of difficulty for the player to spot.

[OutOnTheOP]

I'm not saying preferential targeting of key man-packed infantry support weapons is irrellevent to the A-10C mission; I'm saying that at the speeds and altitudes you operate (yes, even if you're really in the weeds), you'll never identify a mortar tube among men. So if your mission calls for engaging mortar positions, just put a cluster of 7-10 men in a small area, and have the FAC direct you to the target. Because without the FAC talking you RIGHT onto the target, you'd never see it. Ergo, no need to model seperate mortar teams. Or at least, it's a very low priority