Ground Force issues

Thunderwve · July 13, 2012

Hello,

I've been playing combined arms now for a while and noticed a few things:

* While playing US Forces as a ground commander, my Paladin Artillery Units were unable to destroy even weak targets standing still like APCs. Shells were hammering into the ground just beside the APCs but nothing happended. The only thing that got destroyed by time were ZU-23 AAA guns. In contrary, the russian artillery shredded my Bradley Platoon as shells hammered beside them.

* The M1A2 Abrams stands no chance against a T80U. The missiles they fire outrange the M1A2 by far and my platoons are destroyed before they can even reach the T80Us. While I can understand that it is just like that in reality, it degrades the ground commander to a position where the only thing he can do is advance to positions already cleared by air. Perhaps another mission design is needed to give them more sense. At the moment it makes more sense to send Bradleys into the fray because they have TOWs and drive faster while they get destroyed just like an M1A2 with one missile or hit by SABOT.

* As a JTAC, I noticed that no one is ever firing at me. In addition, I was able to destroy a complete SA-11 site and Tunguskas just with my Humvee .50 cal. Are damage calculations going to be re-worked?

* Shooting smoke pods as an JTAC, I noticed that I have unlimited smoke with ultra precision. Is shooting smoke getting enhanced in future releases?

* I know that the super detailed F10 map is a powerful asset for a JTAC. However, I think a map where I can read grids more easily would be better. I'm having a hard time pinning down locations of enemies my air recce reports.

* Not having the ability to use Track IR makes being a JTAC a bit of a challenge when trying to find the A10 in the air, looking out for threats and friendlies. Is TrackIR support for vehicles implemented in a later release?

* The ground forces only drive with ~35mph, even when advancing an enemy position, set to state red and the slider put to 99mph, while these vehicles are capable of driving 60mph or faster when operated manually. This nearly doubles the time needed for my tanks to shoot the T80s. Do I miss something or is this a bug?

* Forests do not conceal ground forces and the AI begins shooting with missiles from T80s through them. Currently, there is no way to advance under concealment. Will forests be sight/missile blocker in future releases?

* I tried to set Infantry as an usable asset but noticed that every soldier is an own symbol on the map instead of the entire squad which gets a bit cluttered when for example an entire Stryker Brigade is moving. In addition, US Forces in DCS don't have anti tank capabilities on foot at the moment. Are these planned to be implemented?

I think the groundforce commander is still a bit out of place because his assets lack many features and concealment was never a factor in DCS. Otherwise a great step forward and I like the extra dimension added to DCS.

JABO2009 · July 13, 2012

Id like to add a similar and unexpected ground unit issue here:

yesterday I entered one of the CA Singleplayer Missions , called "night attack" or something like that..

anyway: I played blue and ordered a group of tanks into enemy lines , me as one of them inside an MA1 tank...

as expected, we were shot up immediately ( i had no tactical approach on my move, just wanted to test enemys response) :-)

and now comes the strange part:

after being killed I switched into a humwee and wanted to test enemys engagement again and drove into reach of the enemy group...

but nothing happend ! I shot at several tanks (the ones who killed me before) but no reaction...finally I drove into the middle of the enemy lines, shooting at at least 6 tanks and AA units and even managed to take out a tunguska with the humvee roof mounted gun ! not a single bullet was fired at me !!

So WTF?

Edited July 13, 2012 by JABO2009

Nate--IRL-- · July 13, 2012

Could be the HMMMV was set as "Invisible" in the Mission editor by the author.

Nate

Dmut · July 13, 2012

Hello,

I've been playing combined arms now for a while and noticed a few things:

* While playing US Forces as a ground commander, my Paladin Artillery Units were unable to destroy even weak targets standing still like APCs. Shells were hammering into the ground just beside the APCs but nothing happended. The only thing that got destroyed by time were ZU-23 AAA guns. In contrary, the russian artillery shredded my Bradley Platoon as shells hammered beside them.

* The M1A2 Abrams stands no chance against a T80U. The missiles they fire outrange the M1A2 by far and my platoons are destroyed before they can even reach the T80Us. While I can understand that it is just like that in reality, it degrades the ground commander to a position where the only thing he can do is advance to positions already cleared by air. Perhaps another mission design is needed to give them more sense. At the moment it makes more sense to send Bradleys into the fray because they have TOWs and drive faster while they get destroyed just like an M1A2 with one missile or hit by SABOT.

There is no a single line of code in DCS:CA which favored one side over another. What you saw was just coincidence of various factors - timing, bearing, terrain, random. More you will play - more you will see various situations with different results.

Raven434th · July 13, 2012

* Forests do not conceal ground forces and the AI begins shooting with missiles from T80s through them. Currently, there is no way to advance under concealment. Will forests be sight/missile blocker in future releases?

AGREED!!! THIS TOTALY UNDERMINES THE COMBINED ARMS CONCEPT

3instein · July 13, 2012

I have also saw this every time,when you are in the humvee as a recon "jtac" nobody shoots at you and you can move anywhere freely. :noexpression:

Nate--IRL-- · July 13, 2012

I have also saw this every time,when you are in the humvee as a recon "jtac" nobody shoots at you and you can move anywhere freely. :noexpression:

Could be the HMMMV was set as "Invisible" in the Mission editor by the author.

Nate

Nate

xjiks · July 13, 2012

Could be the HMMMV was set as "Invisible" in the Mission editor by the author.

Nate

What would be the maximum distance for the Jtac to point a target, and what is the best way to place the JTAC so it's not invisible BUT far enough from the ennemy to remain safe ?

Is direct line of sight required ?

Revelation · July 13, 2012

What would be the maximum distance for the Jtac to point a target, and what is the best way to place the JTAC so it's not invisible BUT far enough from the ennemy to remain safe ?
Is direct line of sight required ?

If you are close enough to see the enemy you are close enough for them to kill you. The reason behind the invisible option was to make it so that the enemy didn't kill something like a JTAC before you get on station.

CaptHawk · July 13, 2012

Just to add as per the speed of ground forces limited to 35mph...I had the Leopard tank up to 72 mph on the road once I was in 7th gear full throttle. When I was setting the M1A2's speed at full they were only doing 35mph. When I jumped in one it was in 4th gear....

Also I was in a Mutli mission on the blue side with maybe 8 Leopards and a dozen M109's against 20 T80's...wiped out in no time:D Makes sense to add some bradleys in this case and at least 1 A10C...

Nate--IRL-- · July 13, 2012

What would be the maximum distance for the Jtac to point a target, and what is the best way to place the JTAC so it's not invisible BUT far enough from the ennemy to remain safe ?
Is direct line of sight required ?

Yeah LOS is required. IIRC M1s will start to bombard you at 2~3 miles, so outside of that, for certain. It is really something mission builders will have to play with to find the best results.

Nate

Thunderwve · July 13, 2012

There is no a single line of code in DCS:CA which favored one side over another. What you saw was just coincidence of various factors - timing, bearing, terrain, random. More you will play - more you will see various situations with different results.

I refer to the standard missions of CA. In these missions, the Ground Commander has one M1A2 platoon for each flank against 3-6 T-80U. In every case, 3 T80U were enough to kill an advancing M1A2 platoon in wedge formation with an supporting M2A2 Bradley Platoon 100 meters behind because they outrange even the Bradleys TOW (3750 meter range) with their AT-11(5000 meter range) as well as the M1A2s 120mm gun in range and precision.

There are 1250 meters in which the advancing force cannot defend itself effectively against the defending T-80U

In most cases, my tanks don't even come into range because they drive with 35mph to the enemy. Best case, a M2A2 Bradley comes into range but gets destroyed because the TOW is too slow. Well all these things are ok, because the attacker is in a disadvantage when advancing. However, I don't think it makes the Ground Commander a valuable asset to the game thats why I think that the attacking force needs far more tanks to be effective or more tactical possibilities to advance, like having concealment from a forest and advancing faster when not directly controlling the tanks.

Boogie Van · July 13, 2012

There is something highly aggravating when you watch a T-80 start shooting off its in-bore ATGM through a tree-line you can't see crap through. I don't really mind so much the ATGM range, but the nearly instant kill is just, 'Really?' When coupled with the fact the AI get to see through all the foliage.

Being able to see the orientation of enemy vehicles by simply looking at the map would also aid these sorts of situations; and make it easier to gauge where your flanking should take you.

HiJack · July 13, 2012

Mission design now needs to be rethinked completly if you plan to have Game Commanders, Battle Commanders and JTAC activated for human players. As human we of course explore every button to press :P And jump in to every unit that can be controlled and the invisible immortal units is of course the first a player will use as it gives perfect cover :D

(HJ)

Nate--IRL-- · July 13, 2012

There is something highly aggravating when you watch a T-80 start shooting off its in-bore ATGM through a tree-line you can't see crap through. I don't really mind so much the ATGM range, but the nearly instant kill is just, 'Really?' When coupled with the fact the AI get to see through all the foliage.

Being able to see the orientation of enemy vehicles by simply looking at the map would also aid these sorts of situations; and make it easier to gauge where your flanking should take you.

The AI seeing through forests is an acknowledged issue.

Nate

Boogie Van · July 13, 2012

If I may, is there anything being done about the difficulty of aiming? HE shells, autocannons and the like are easy to gauge, plus the reticule actually is fairly accurate, but AP shells are extraordinarily difficult to accurately get down range.

Thunderwve · July 14, 2012

The AI seeing through forests is an acknowledged issue.

Nate

Will it get fixed in an update? As well as denying objects like rockets, missiles or aircrafts to fly through them? I understand never needed much attention, but I think now that there a player controlled ground forces it should be more elaborate.

It would also be a great addition for Ka50 pilots to pop up behind forests.

Nate--IRL-- · July 14, 2012

Will it get fixed in an update?

I'm only a tester - I have no idea.

Nate

usmcnaz · July 14, 2012

I know this is a Beta release of a computer game meant to appeal to the masses; but there are some things fundamentally wrong with CA. Perhaps ED has bitten off way more than it can chew? I understand that simulations have limitations, and I realize I'm even more critical because of my real-life experience. I can't recall being more frustrated with a game/simulation. Let me just mention some things that frustrated me: (1) why is the JTAC stuck in a vehicle? (2) why can't I turn off the vehicle engine? (3) why does the AI see through trees and buildings? Why does the terrain have edges like a pyramid? Why can't I really "CONTROL" (the "C" in JTAC) planes and indirect fire assets (A-10s and Arty)?

These are just a few of many. I doubt very much ED will be able to or want to fix most of what is fundamentally flawed with this product. I took my chance, spent my money, and now I know better.

159th_Viper · July 14, 2012

I doubt very much ED will be able to or want to fix most of what is fundamentally flawed with this product

And you know that how?

OpusTheFowl · July 14, 2012

I know this is a Beta release of a computer game meant to appeal to the masses;
...
I took my chance, spent my money, and now I know better.

Your definition of "beta" is interesting and unique to say the least.

And yes, YOU took the chance...so the frustrations you are faced with are ultimately your own fault as a quick browse of these forums would have pointed-out what is and isn't fix/included in the beta.

Either your expectations are too high, your tolerance too low or you just like to whine...I suspect a bit of everything there...

Have a nice day.

ShuRugal · July 14, 2012

(1) why is the JTAC stuck in a vehicle?

Because this is a beta and infantry is not yet implemented

(2) why can't I turn off the vehicle engine?

Because this is a beta and that is not yet implemented

(3) why does the AI see through trees and buildings?

Because the engine this beta is based on is for a flight simulator and this has not been changed yet.

Why does the terrain have edges like a pyramid?

Because when you have tens of thousands of square miles of playable terrain space, it is absolutely imperative that it be low-polygon.

Why can't I really "CONTROL" (the "C" in JTAC) planes and indirect fire assets (A-10s and Arty)?

because this is a beta and those feature are not yet implemented. If you want to control an A-10, jump in an A-10 slot (assuming you have purchased DCS A-10)

I took my chance, spent my money, and now I know better.

you bought a pre-purchase and as a gift were given access to a public beta. I've never seen any game company (aside from one or two MMOs where public beta is a virtual requirement) give beta access on pre-purchase. The standard is "give us your money and when we finish the game, its yours", so quit your bitching.

CaptHawk · July 14, 2012

I know this is a Beta release............ I doubt very much ED will be able to or want to fix most of what is fundamentally flawed with this product. I took my chance, spent my money, and now I know better.

You know this is a beta, but did you know this is a beta release? Lot's and more of these issues will be fixed/implemented/ect. Please give it a chance and have some patience. And remember, if it really bothers you, you can wait till the final release comes out:thumbup:

Wolfie · July 14, 2012

There is no a single line of code in DCS:CA which favored one side over another. What you saw was just coincidence of various factors - timing, bearing, terrain, random. More you will play - more you will see various situations with different results.

Reality's a bitch. Simulators are good at showing flaws in what you thought was invincible. :doh:

And the Ruskies put out some dam fine weapon systems. :music_whistling:

I know this is a Beta release of a computer game meant to appeal to the masses; but there are some things fundamentally wrong with CA. Perhaps ED has bitten off way more than it can chew? I understand that simulations have limitations, and I realize I'm even more critical because of my real-life experience. I can't recall being more frustrated with a game/simulation. Let me just mention some things that frustrated me: (1) why is the JTAC stuck in a vehicle? (2) why can't I turn off the vehicle engine? (3) why does the AI see through trees and buildings? Why does the terrain have edges like a pyramid? Why can't I really "CONTROL" (the "C" in JTAC) planes and indirect fire assets (A-10s and Arty)?

These are just a few of many. I doubt very much ED will be able to or want to fix most of what is fundamentally flawed with this product. I took my chance, spent my money, and now I know better.

A little patience, bud! Thank God for ED! Have you seen ANY other company try to do what they are doing here? With realism? Only Arma has tried and if it wasn't for the modders, it wouldn't be worth shit. Not too mention its tiny compared to the land encompassed in BS2 and A-10. Vanilla arma has about 0% realism in it. More like playing with military barbie dolls. It sucks, and BIS doesn't plan on doing anything about it. Now look at the TOTAL REALISM in ED's products. I couldn't hope for better than this. True that things are not very good ground wise right now ( in realism and graphics), and there are still a lot of bugs. BUT ITS A START. And you can already see some realism taking place ( gear shifting for instance). You won't see that in Arma. I have a LOT of faith in ED. This first beta is a money making venture for the die hards to buy ( you've got to make money to stay alive). So give it time. One day we'll see DCS:M1A2 TUSK as an addon module, and better, rolling landscape, I'm sure. Also wouldn't mind seeing DCS:T80U

Edited July 14, 2012 by Wolfie

mrniel · July 14, 2012

Regarding you'r observation on lacking artillery efficiency, i had a similar thing happening last nite. My predator drone came near a red arty battery so i was able to observe impacts.

Had 2 battery of 109s 155 mm, and 2 MLRS pounding it for a solid hour, and not a single vehicle was destroyed. Wached for a long time from the predator impact pattern tightly grouped hit again and again set to cover the tight area the enemy occupied. Both soft trucks and fueltruck, seemed to be invincibel, or my shells made of cardboard.

There was impacts literally straight on the trucks with no apperent effect.

All in all there was probably delivered about a 1000 shells in a 200 m diameter over a hour.

And not a single unit was destroyed.

Weird.

Was trying to do anti artillery work first before attack.

Regarding t80s i think we all have noticed the range advantage they have. So i approached a single one from behind terrain cover, and 12 ai m1 crested 100 m from it to its side, it singel handed shot every abrams dead. And they had free fire on yes. Talk about a super crew. A coincident ?

But all in all i'm wery impressed and happy with the product, and can live with a few oddities.

Edited July 14, 2012 by mrniel
Missing conclution

Sign In

Ground Force issues

Recommended Posts

Thunderwve

JABO2009

Nate--IRL--

Dmut

Raven434th

3instein

Nate--IRL--

xjiks

Revelation

CaptHawk

Nate--IRL--

Thunderwve

Boogie Van

HiJack

Nate--IRL--

Boogie Van

Thunderwve

Nate--IRL--

usmcnaz

159th_Viper

OpusTheFowl

ShuRugal

CaptHawk

Wolfie

mrniel

Recently Browsing 0 members