What is the future of CA?

It would be nice if certain recon vehicles had similar equipment to the JTAC binocs but with much better optics, it is of course limited to vehicles that had such equipment. This might add more depth to the recce vehicles.

I feel like other than the obvious things previously discussed. I also think that we need some more battlespace things. Things like comms systems, GCI-AWACS-SAM interaction with both players and other units, infantry unloading/loading from trucks/IFVs/APCs/Aircraft/Boats. Things that add depth and allow things to flow more naturally would make it a much better experience.

infantry unloading/loading from trucks

I think infantry is just a big waste right now in DCS.

JTACs should be able to call in proper artillery fire missions and correct them via spotting. Something better than by clicking the F10 map

I think infantry is just a big waste right now in DCS.

They're in the process of implementing a real skeleton for infantry (though we haven't heard from that in some time), and with the incoming 2.5 level of detail ground work should be that much more pleasing.

I think infantry shouldn't be a feature 'on the side' considering how a lot of air operations are directly linked to the forces that have their boots on the ground.

You can see some of the new skeletal animations in the Russian infantry soldiers. I think they are the only ones to have gotten the treatment so far but it's definitely a huge improvement.

Would like to see DCS work on performance for CA. Right now you have these big beautiful maps but if you try to have an engagement bigger than Battalion size the FPS starts to plummet. Having more than 20 groups (say 200 units) moving simultaneously will bring the system to its knees. They need to figure that out if CA is going to be a major contender.

I guess job 1 for ED right now is getting these two theatres married up under version 2.5 or whatever it will be. Right now it almost like they are trying to support not two sims (let's not exaggerate) but one and a half, maybe. Then I think we'll start to see this whole platform move forward - and CA will hopefully be a big part of those plans.

Here is a drum that I keep beating (sorry for those that have read it before): Give us a mechanism by which we can persistent values/flags that carry from one mission to the next. Then we can build a dynamic campaign based on what the results of the fighting that is happening on the ground.

We can have what, 999 different flags in a mission? Just develop a mechanism to allow those values to carry over inside a campaign! That's it! Seems like it would be easy enough to do -- the flags are already there, just allow them to be read and written somewhere. Probably one of their Russian interns could do it in a week during his smoke breaks.

No doubt it isn't that simple -- I am sure there are some security concerns here, in terms of maintaining data integrity, that are entering into the picture. But it is worth spending some time on this. I would love to hear where ED's collective head is at on this subject, to understand what the hazards are, because it would change the way we look at playing CA, I think. Your unit placement would be read off those flags, and that folks, would mean having something very close to a moving FLOT.

Ripcord: already possible and you have a lot more flags than 999. Just try it out in the mission designer and assign flags to a high number. Flags status can be written and read to a file. Just look at BlueFlag witch saves mission status and loads a new mission with the previously saved status for all units. There is virtually no limitation on what you can do with .lua scripting, limited only by your mind and working around DCS bugs.

Here is a drum that I keep beating (sorry for those that have read it before): Give us a mechanism by which we can persistent values/flags that carry from one mission to the next. Then we can build a dynamic campaign based on what the results of the fighting that is happening on the ground.

 

We can have what, 999 different flags in a mission? Just develop a mechanism to allow those values to carry over inside a campaign! That's it! Seems like it would be easy enough to do -- the flags are already there, just allow them to be read and written somewhere. Probably one of their Russian interns could do it in a week during his smoke breaks.

 

No doubt it isn't that simple -- I am sure there are some security concerns here, in terms of maintaining data integrity, that are entering into the picture. But it is worth spending some time on this. I would love to hear where ED's collective head is at on this subject, to understand what the hazards are, because it would change the way we look at playing CA, I think. Your unit placement would be read off those flags, and that folks, would mean having something very close to a moving FLOT.

As written above that it is possible (I didnt know that!) but i think that far more important would be to separate paths (waypoints) from the groups.

So we can add a empty paths or individual waypoints and use them in triggers or logics to create randomly missions.

Ie. Add 7 paths with multiple waypoints where a same group can be spawned randomly. Then add 10 random waypoints that you can use for other events like if unit/group gets attacked/locked, they will use one of them randomly as rally point or point used for refueling/rearming etc.

And then such a simple thing as allow same group or units in group to be spawned again and again and again.

So we can make a very simple training or enemy spawner where single group just gets spawned again every 5 minutes or triggers like when 50℅ of group is destroyed when group is spawned again, and get these groups either behave as two totally different groups (AI logic) or even as "reinforced" that will seek to previous group and join to it creating a larger/new group that works as one group (or make combination of those).

Just by having waypoints and groups separated would open far more mission capabilities, as we could easily make artificial immersion of logic that adds random to missions where wanted.

Ans that works as well for air missions where you can have same air units to suddenly operate with a different logic and manner, without burden to add dozens of new groups and randomly trigger one of those to appear.

ARMA series didnt have that either, but it at least allowed to get same group spawned by scripting after group was gone. And that waypoint was possible be widened so big that AI randomly chose position where it was passed. Like make waypoint area 500m wide and AI every time chose any location inside that where waypoint was positioned.

That allowed partially working random function where ie. Defender was required to keep an eye of large direction as enemy did come differently everytime.

This would make human players as well interested more about CA and as well any air missions because you never fly the same when mission planner has given multiple possible objectives or routes to same mission.

By middle of the route capability to change the routes would make things more interesting as pilots could be required to reprogram the new waypoints like ground control guides, or simply get a new commands to operate differently as mission cartridge has data as new priority mission requires to complete something else than was planned before takeoff.

And then such a simple thing as allow same group or units in group to be spawned again and again and again.

So we can make a very simple training or enemy spawner where single group just gets spawned again every 5 minutes or triggers like when 50℅ of group is destroyed when group is spawned again, and get these groups either behave as two totally different groups (AI logic)

That can be done with MIST and DO SCRIPT Triggers already.:smartass:

...but all of this is nice to have, as long as trees do not obstruct AI's view or block shots and AI damage model is not updated.

Ripcord: already possible and you have a lot more flags than 999. Just try it out in the mission designer and assign flags to a high number. Flags status can be written and read to a file. Just look at BlueFlag witch saves mission status and loads a new mission with the previously saved status for all units. There is virtually no limitation on what you can do with .lua scripting, limited only by your mind and working around DCS bugs.

OK then this is huge and I am keen to understand it. Thank you for pointing this out.

Something like this should be incorporated into the ME and documented. Indeed there are a lot of cool LUA scripts out there that should be 'built in', and looking through the ME in the Nevada theatre, I wonder if maybe some of them actually HAVE been added.

That can be done with MIST and DO SCRIPT Triggers already.:smartass:

 

...but all of this is nice to have, as long as trees do not obstruct AI's view or block shots and AI damage model is not updated.

Scripts can do many things, but thoss should be built in and be as easy to use as drawing now a simple path. Meaning there should be a path tool, and then assign a group to it in wanted rules.

Search this forum for MOOSE and follow the development there, you can even participate if you like.

Scripts can do many things, but thoss should be built in and be as easy to use as drawing now a simple path. Meaning there should be a path tool, and then assign a group to it in wanted rules.

I wanted to point out that persistent flags require scripts as well...

Actually it requires to deactivate the sanitation of the LUA environment, that prevents executing malware code from a “deliberately“ manipulated mission file.

I know, very unlikely, and I never heard of any “malicious" mission, but it is a very relevant security concern.

Unlike complex lua scripting, though, MIST enables you to use simple commands to achieve a lot of brilliant stuff, for automation and random mission build.

Basically you copy paste a line and rather than clicking checkmarks or groupnames you have to use a keyboard to type a true/false or 0/1 and a "groupname", "zonename" instead of selecting from a list...

As nice as a simplified graphical interface for MIST would be, ED should focus on the game breaking aspects.

What use is a rando set of paths, if the convoy gets destroyed on any of the paths, as the AI can see through trees and buildings, while you in your Tank or Humvee can't see shit, until you miraculously explode?

There is already a lot you can do with the current trigger system. And even very complex and stuff with a few lines of script that can often be used via copy and paste, plus a change of "group"and "zone" names.

It is a matter of priority for me. :)

Not asking for MIST or any of these super cool addons to be totally incorporated, but some of the basic blocking and tackling features could certainly be added.

And nobody would argue that these additions would in any way outweigh the very obvious shortcomings with AI unit behavior.

Damn good discussion in this thread.

I wanted to point out that persistent flags require scripts as well...

Actually it requires to deactivate the sanitation of the LUA environment, that prevents executing malware code from a “deliberately“ manipulated mission file.

I know, very unlikely, and I never heard of any “malicious" mission, but it is a very relevant security concern.

 

Unlike complex lua scripting, though, MIST enables you to use simple commands to achieve a lot of brilliant stuff, for automation and random mission build.

Basically you copy paste a line and rather than clicking checkmarks or groupnames you have to use a keyboard to type a true/false or 0/1 and a "groupname", "zonename" instead of selecting from a list...

 

As nice as a simplified graphical interface for MIST would be, ED should focus on the game breaking aspects.

 

What use is a rando set of paths, if the convoy gets destroyed on any of the paths, as the AI can see through trees and buildings, while you in your Tank or Humvee can't see shit, until you miraculously explode?

 

There is already a lot you can do with the current trigger system. And even very complex and stuff with a few lines of script that can often be used via copy and paste, plus a change of "group"and "zone" names.

 

It is a matter of priority for me. :)

I totally agree that priority should be about trees and AI detection system, radar and so on (you can see my posts in this thread as well) as it would totally make DCS different and far more difficult to everyone.

But when it comes to mission building, i think that needs to be second in list as we need more mission builders who can easily jump in and start just by clicking GUI too get more complex missions without writing scripts or so.

Like compare what ARMA series was before ARMA III Zeus/Eden that now makes far more easier to get units respawned or do wanted things. And that makes mission builders easier tasks and community benefits from it.

With scripts we can do a lot, but as there is now a thread about new campaign with realistic history etc, it was estimated that mission building takes 80 hours with each 50€ a hour.

It really should be so that a average users could make more complex missions than now just by clicking.

A map should be changed so that we can command units on ground in mission of CA, or when making missions, by giving same command as in real world. Meaning you give coordinates or point the map, give the time (in 2 hours from now or complete before 1345 hours) give the direction of expected enemy and then simple commands where are group area, rally points, what is route to location, radio frequency and call signs etc. Then when zooming closer, you get to command individual unit firing zones, group engagement ranges and when to engage enemy and when to retreat or so.

In reality you can command easily hundreds of ground troops with a complex defensive or offensive positions in a few seconds just with a map and simple commands. And that should be built in.

ARMA is great in that as group control is really great how you can really command units easily as should. And you can do that very quickly. But even it doesn't have all basic commands, like the engagement zones and ranges and time or situations.

Ie. We should be able to get a ground units to one position in wanted direction. Command that their task is to defend specific part of road, expected enemy heading is X, amount and type of enemy is Y, a engagement to happen on position C on road or when unit type of H is on area, or E amount is over the line, not to open fire on specific enemy units. After destroying O amount of enemies, retreat to south to point F etc etc.

Sure that can be done with triggers and making the effort to name units etc, but it is time taking and doesn't have the flexibility like you could command units on the fly in mission or change some of the properties like position of units or engagement rules, without restarting everything else.

And CA really needs a fluid command system on the fly, and so does mission builders to get easier way to assist AI with the logic what to do, without scripting or building more complex static missions.

That is as well what makes human players so nice when you can give the simple commands by just drawing on map and they know what to do.

If ED would implement a simple drawing system where you place typical commands on map, it would make many things easier.

And that was one thing like what steel beasts has nicely done.

Ok, I revive that "necro post".

Not sure if ED has any plans to CA, or all has done and and CA develop has locked and none more features can expected.

but Actually has none info about some "improvements / features" talking about the ED team / Wags on the last years about CA:

Some recompilation:

-Add IFV / APC infantry transport capability

-Realistic track and wheel physics

-Realistic engine power graphs and torque ratios, gearbox, clutch, transmission, damping.

-Infantry update

-Realistic tank / artillery guns fire

-Ability to fire ships main guns.

-New naval gun ammunition's.

Any info about them? or dead and buried?

I hope someday player can command long range anti-air missile，like S-300

CA is neither dead nor not improved. I would like the pace of improving it to be quicker, but nevertheless, it is being improved constantly. Really.

What is the most needed thing is that creators of multiplayer missions/campaigns (and single player/offline) include CA in a meaningful way.

You can find a DCS development roadmap in these forums, and you will se how many things related to CA are there. ;)

What is the most needed thing is that creators of multiplayer missions/campaigns (and single player/offline) include CA in a meaningful way.

Interesting statement.

Give us a couple examples of ways to better include CA (which are not currently offered by creators of missions/campaigns).

Well, for the most part, there is no CA in multiplayer servers. This observation is based on my online experiences some months ago. Two most notable exceptions that come to my mind were HolloPointe and 159th GAR. Coordinated fast action of strikers and armor was amazing. And that happened couple of times between players who got together for the first time. Amazing. So, basically, my point was I would like to see it more. ;)

No info, but certainly not dead.

Good to know it aint dead.

As IMHO CA module is crucially important for DCS as it has the possibility to raise customer base in DCS by attracting a RTS players to it, as they have more interest about realism, patience to play for hours and can see a big picture in combat, and are more capable to build strategies and tactics for combat. This is reason why I dislike about ideas to even add any infantry gameplay modes (other than MANPADS) like ARMA etc to it as we can't have FPS players to have at all same patience and co-op as RTS players, as no one is willing to sit and wait 30min as soldier patrolling a vehicle group.... And as DCS ain't like Battlefield 1942 etc, it is simply impossible.

Why I would say that ED should carefully consider CA to be made for RTS gamers and then add other features to simulate ATC, SAM etc systems as then a control infantry squads/platoons in easy way (controls more like in Eugens "Wargame" series).

It would be awesome to see online servers running a 24/7 missions where RTS player clans can operate the ground operations more freely.

Coordinated fast action of strikers and armor was amazing. And that happened couple of times between players who got together for the first time. Amazing. So, basically, my point was I would like to see it more. ;)

That's fair.

To me the whole thing should revolve around the situation on the ground. The air war is fought to win the ground war ultimately. So it is a bit hard to imagine a credible mission scenario that doesn't involve ground units. Probably most missions are built around AI ground units, I think that is fair to say. But is it that hard to sprinkle in some CA player-controlled ground units at key points on the battlefield?

The thing about this, from a mission builder perspective, is you can add in the player controlled units on the battlefield and place them, but you really never know if those units are ever going to be activated, eg. used by a human player. So you can allow for that, but you cannot count on it. This means you cannot use THAT unit as a trigger, or build a scenario that revolves around THAT unit getting to a certain zone, etc. IIRC even scoring is different for MP than it is for SP. So you have to create the mission so that your human CA players can impact the outcome, but the mission still functions without their participation.