Jump to content

What is the future of CA?


Recommended Posts

My idea for CA in this game is add infantry in a very special way, never like a FPS. THIS GAME IS NOT FPS. The performance of this simulator must be center in air combat...

 

Set a max of two squads in a radius of 50km limit. (Mission editor must limit this as well in game). Mission editor can add some triggers to control this better.

 

Every squad with a max of only one soldier playable with the option to switch between soldiers/leader/machine gunner/RPG/sniper unit.

 

The squad may badly damage an armor unit killing the driver, damaging sensors, or immobilized vehicles in case RPG hit.

 

With the Mi-24 we get the third serious infantry transport and still don’t get the real deal with infantry in game.

 

Also with this add we set a new level of CAS for our A-10 and Su-25, been the Su-25 and the attack helicopters the most dangerous for this soft infantry groups.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm wondering when Subs will get a "depth" parameter and torpedoes. It has to be on the cards eventually in Digital Combat Simulator: World. Since the Oceans contained a depth and ships got bottoms, we have seen amphibious IFV's turn up. These changes might be glacial in speed, but they are there over the years.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so tired of games with small maps, short game play, and instant gratification. Give me very large maps, a complex battle area, strategy, and battles that can go one for hours, days, and even weeks. Give us at least one with superb graphics.

 

You can have all that by venturing into multiplayer - there's even a server (DDCS) that allows full CA control of vehicles that players make by slingloading crates in helicopters to 'build' units. A normal battle lasts anywhere from 1-3 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have all that by venturing into multiplayer - there's even a server (DDCS) that allows full CA control of vehicles that players make by slingloading crates in helicopters to 'build' units. A normal battle lasts anywhere from 1-3 weeks.

 

 

What is the name of this server ?

[sIGPIC]Luftgangsta[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every squad with a max of only one soldier playable with the option to switch between soldiers/leader/machine gunner/RPG/sniper unit.

 

The squad may badly damage an armor unit killing the driver, damaging sensors, or immobilized vehicles in case RPG hit.

 

For that you require:

Playable infantry with accurate weapons implemented (assault rifle, RPG, Machine gunners, sniper rifles, grenade launchers and other weapon) as russian and US/UK/NATO, squad movement and formations, some kind of "infantry command" with AI "infantry" intelligence, and add the proper ballistic affected by wind and weather. Some kind or "radio" to communicate into squad members and portable radios to communicate with vehicles, aircraft's, etc. The actual "system" near of them has be the "Pseudo JTAC".

 

A Damage modelling implemented on vehicles at same level of a aircraft / helo with system simulated to being broken, not only a "heal bar".

 

Other problem as:

Infantry on the actual clear DCS map has a "turkey shot". The infantry dont take cover or deploy using terrain. They cant cover on trees, rocks, etc, the different buildings has not proper modelling to enter into them and cover a squad of the AI sensor or use them as a ambush point from doors, windows, etc. No bunkers with armour or earthwork to cover them or if deployed them on the building roof, they can´t descend to the basement or vice versa. A long etc, never planned.

 

With the Mi-24 we get the third serious infantry transport and still don’t get the real deal with infantry in game.

 

The Mi-24 normally was not used to transport by problems if carry external ammunition and passengers / cargo internally.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that you require:

Playable infantry with accurate weapons implemented (assault rifle, RPG, Machine gunners, sniper rifles, grenade launchers and other weapon) as russian and US/UK/NATO, squad movement and formations, some kind of "infantry command" with AI "infantry" intelligence, and add the proper ballistic affected by wind and weather. Some kind or "radio" to communicate into squad members and portable radios to communicate with vehicles, aircraft's, etc. The actual "system" near of them has be the "Pseudo JTAC".

 

A Damage modelling implemented on vehicles at same level of a aircraft / helo with system simulated to being broken, not only a "heal bar".

 

Other problem as:

Infantry on the actual clear DCS map has a "turkey shot". The infantry dont take cover or deploy using terrain. They cant cover on trees, rocks, etc, the different buildings has not proper modelling to enter into them and cover a squad of the AI sensor or use them as a ambush point from doors, windows, etc. No bunkers with armour or earthwork to cover them or if deployed them on the building roof, they can´t descend to the basement or vice versa. A long etc, never planned.

 

Yeah I know we need all this implementation but I was not pointing how to do it, just basics generally tacking stuff needed

 

The Mi-24 normally was not used to transport by problems if carry external ammunition and passengers / cargo internally.

 

The same for Mi-8, HUEY.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I know we need all this implementation but I was not pointing how to do it, just basics generally tacking stuff needed

 

What part has that "basic"? you need implement someone, and no have a "easy" task making them.

 

The same for Mi-8, HUEY.

 

The UH-1 and Mi-8 has transport helos with a secondary support capability and need follow the procedures to use them. The Mi-24 has a attack helo with a very limited transport capability with affect to the performance if your overloading the aircraft if you load troops with a complement of troops or cargo. (normally not use by the flight manual), PilotMi8 was very clear about them.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part has that "basic"? you need implement someone, and no have a "easy" task making them.

 

 

 

The UH-1 and Mi-8 has transport helos with a secondary support capability and need follow the procedures to use them. The Mi-24 has a attack helo with a very limited transport capability with affect to the performance if your overloading the aircraft if you load troops with a complement of troops or cargo. (normally not use by the flight manual), PilotMi8 was very clear about them.

 

About the weapon load and troops capacity. You show poor knowledge about.

 

And yes I was telling we need a bridge and you were telling how many screws need the bridge. Don’t waste your time like that, we are pointing generally. Also we need to work, study for our life. I hope you do too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea for CA in this game is add infantry in a very special way, never like a FPS. THIS GAME IS NOT FPS. The performance of this simulator must be center in air combat...

 

 

Yeah, that's getting old fast. This is digital COMBAT simulator, not digital FLIGHT simulator. The way to bring in more people ( and more fun and revenue!) is to start making vehicle and infantryman simulation.

 

 

I'd like to be able to jump out my broken heli and grab a MANPAD out of the storage bay. Surprise! you Western Gangster! :D

 

 

That scene in Fire Birds with Sean Young grabbing the Stinger tube off the rail was AWESOME!

 

 

EDIT: I crashed my copter the other night on a field in the Caucasus. I had put a couple of hills between me and the enemy vehicles and the sky was clear on a sunny day. I shut down the engines and killed the battery and after a few minutes, the engines finally wound down to quietness. I opened the door of the cockpit and you could hear a fresh breeze blowing across the field of long, sunlit grass. I just sat there for a while, enjoying the tranquility of it all. This game definitely has some FPS potential. Well done with the moving grass and the wind sound. Felt pretty real.


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wanting to see FPS in this game. Even if we start with just simple vehicles at first. Playable infantry needs to be brought in.

 

 

When you had the free weekend with the Persian Gulf map, I bailed out of the F-18 and made it to the ground. It was night, and you could hear the jets roar overhead. There were the sounds of traffic far off. It was pretty spooky. It was as good as any other FPS map I've played.

 

 

Make DCS: World into DCS: WORLD. You'll go from some niche sim few people have heard of, into a sim EVERYONE knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individually playable infantry would be a really bad choice here... You'd be taking a full network slot for a single infantry unit. That's not good. I feel like it should stick to being more RTSish with it's CA implementation. I do feel like troops using buildings and terrain would be good and the AI needs a huge overhall. The new terrain tech should help quite a lot as well.

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny. For a long time, I thought DCS = CA, pretty much. (* Also for the 6 years that passed, it's the reason why it stayed on my radar. (It's really that long - I even looked up our 10 page thread on the regular gaming forum.)

 

Some recent events made DCS very relevant again so I added CA + Gazelle to my collection. After 3 missions of CA, the impressions are a bit underwhelming - capricious at worst, maybe somewhat tedious at best. Feels like it violates several core principles of good RTS design. Then again there are some positives, eg. I like the simulation feel to the battle. Gazelle on the other hand is fun and interesting in a way that's different from the rest.

 

That 40 bucks feels really steep for CA. 15 years ago it could have been an interesting RTS game (with some polish). But it's really hard to evaluate except in a very subjective way without knowing what is ED's strategy and goals with the functionality. I can only hope that the price is a signal to the gaming community that something big is coming in CA 2.0.

 

What we can wish from CA depends much on the resources available. Making a FPS infantry shooter would be a whole new project, and TBH a bit of an odd choice. Parallels to RTS/RTT and WarGame is solid thinking - basically the root of things is already there in current CA. Making an FPS armor (mechanized) game could be a possibility but would require changes to maps, the engine, much new game design and so on; it could have benefits for air warfare too. The problem with all this is that there is competition; in some genres there is LOTS of competition, which on top typically has several years of head start. The key is to ask what kind of value CA provides to players and who are the target group of this module (ground warfare enthusiasts on Steam? high flyer lead customers who will brush $40 under Miscellaneous in their gaming budget?). There are already some very good examples how you can seamlessly integrate different gameplay elements, study those and you're starting to understand what you are trying to do. Make it all rewarding, meaningful and integrate well with the rest of DCS -> profit.

 

Another possibility would be to work on other similar extensions to the game and engine. For example an operational/strategic level campaign engine for full base management, supply, logistics...

 

Often the best game companies seem to be really good in some (unique) core areas. They focus on them while running for a number of other goals as well. Sometimes they are something necessary for a game experience that is an entertaining whole - often they are not something to write home about or even something which everybody involved wants to forget as quickly as possible.

 

(* Several reasons why that might have happened, eg.:

 

 

 

  1. Had just purchased the much hyped Black Shark 2, and it was the short period before I decided it was a bit too much for me and my PC
  2. DCS and CA were announced at roughly the same time
  3. There were very few other modules - implying a different weighing from today - even ED may have changed plans a few times since then, which I guess is allowed
  4. The somewhat ambitious wording ED uses for CA, eg. talk of "a first person armor warfare simulation" and multiple roles for the player team (today, looks like you'd just need 1 JTAC/ground commander for the ground forces?)

 

 


Edited by Varis

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, wht CA really needs and could be made into something that really adds to DCS is in two steps:

 

- Give commandable units a set of different AI behaviors that CA player can choose for them to follow on the fly. This includes different formations too.

 

- Give CA player more options in F10 map. CA doesn't necessarily need a Wargame series like interface, nor a Men of War like one. Yes, they would be cool, but I can see how much work that could be. Just making the F10 map useful as an RTS tool would be great.

Give the player a menu so they can command groups and/or individual units to do stuff. Also embarking/disembarking of infantry needs to be a thing. Infantry needs some sort of "take care of themselves" AI, taking cover etc.

 

Playing a vehicle directly is a cool aspect, but I don't think CA was ever designed to be a tank sim, and it is probably a bit too wide in scope to do right in DCS. This is still primarily a flight sim after all. Complex armour penetration/protection and damage modeling would probably be a bit too much for a sim with big maps where high fidelity stuff is happening all over the air. I see that aspect as a cool cherry on top, kind of like direct control mode in Men of War series. Although I agree that this aspect definitely can use lots of improvements.

 

I know many people think of CA as either a vehicle sim, or even an ARMA alternative. I really don't see it becoming either, and player controlled infantry in DCS is just something that won't work too well for various reasons.

 

However, it can be a great tool to make DCS missions much more dynamic, especially for multiplayer.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things I forgot to mention/discuss:

 

Giving enhanced control of AA units to players can make a LOT of sense. FPS for direct fire guns, RTS/systems UI for multi-component SAM sites and such. For one thing, there are tons of targets on the sky that are already manned by players. Creating a couple of manned AA systems would give a whole new challenge and increased resistance to the air players.

 

I think helicopters are very different from jet platforms - and combined arms aspects might be more important for us helicopter pilots. Jets swoop in, hit (or miss) a target, the swoop out while evading the odd SAM launch - all in the matter of a few seconds, while helicopters linger at the edges of the battlefield, always present and ready to roll with the punches of the battle, while receiving fire from honestly pretty much every calibre of weaponry on the battlefield. The interactions are just a bit more intimate and personal there.

 

The helicopter aspect might be something for ED to consider. I think there really hasn't been a truly worthy helicopter game on this decade but ED stand a chance to still make it (at least for the early 2020's) - what was in Black Shark creates quite an expectation what could be a decade later, if ED is willing to learn and iterate to bring the gameplay into today's world. Infantry would be an important part of the equation - although I understand we're talking pretty ambitious goal setting here.

 

The CA is a dangerous tool. For one thing, it exposes all the illogic and cut corners that might exists in the ground warfare by bringing it right under the player's nose. True the CA can also be a crutch and a workaround to get over stupid AI / game engine issues - but if the core of JTAC skill is how to get over (or abuse) the sometimes sorry state of game implementation, the gameplay experience suffers and can do so for the whole team: they depend on the success or failure of the JTAC for the outcome of the mission. The cost of a truly noteworthy CA brush-up could be countless hours spent in implementing AI and redesigning the maps and the engine at the ground level.

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not trying to "compare" DCS to another game here, so please don't kill my post. I'm only trying to give a general idea of what CA could be, and really should be, in DCS: World.

 

 

 

I remember playing old UT mods that were VERY realistic. They were like Infantry Simulators more than FPS. The graphics weren't the greatest, but they were AWESOME. And guess what? DCS now surpasses those graphics by quite a bit.

 

 

What we always wanted to bring in, but couldn't, because of those days tech limits, were realistic vehicles and aircraft.

 

 

So now, we have the game to do it. With the size of the World we wanted. All DCS has to do map wise is just give us an editor to bring in our own 3d objects. Then, we can build more complex towns and outposts, and such. Maybe even some tiny islands where we can mount fortresses to defend.

 

 

Imagine an aircraft carrier carrying troop helicopters and gun ships bringing in Marines to raid a Terrorist controlled fortress on a small island. Troops can land on the beaches and also fastrope down beyond the fortress walls. Fighters can roam the sky's performing CAP against enemy fighters.

 

 

This is what a lot of people want, and is really yet to be realized.

 

 

True, what probably REALLY needs to be worked on in this game is the NETWORK ( or lack there of ). It needs a modern model, that can handle at least 50 or so players.

 

Imagine this infantry and map style in DCS: World.

 

 

 

Now imagine realistic helicopters and vehicles on this map. TOTAL GAME CHANGER.

 

 

Not the greatest map, but you get the picture. Obviously, DCS: World would be more than capable of this.

 

 

There are some better maps which show the use of helicopters fast-roping Marines to the ground, and then the door gunners backing them up as they assault the target, but unfortunately, I can't find video of it.

 

 

If we only had had DCS: World 20 years ago.


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@3WA it's practically all there already. ED needs to do what it does best and add value to that. Even the 20 years back UT engine just might have been better in FPS infantry combat than today's DCS one... adding in ATGM launchers probably changes it a bit but still... :ermm:

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Buildings with interior models, including collision models, possibly destruction models too

- Dense forests where each tree is rendered at the exact same spot, at the exact same size for every player (though I'm not sure perhaps this is already implemented?)

- Enough terrain complexity not for aircraft but for land vehicles and infantry. Right now for the majority of the maps everywhere is like open terrain and vehicles can engage each other from pretty much maximum range. Go figure how would this be for infantry

- Much better AI for individual ground units.

 

I don't see these happening... really hard and kinda counterproductive for a primarily flight oriented sim. And unless they are there, I don't see DCS: Infantry being a thing beyond a gimmick that quickly gets boring.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people consider flight sim only boring. This is why we are probably more niche than even Steel Beasts.

 

Niche sims don't make money.

 

 

It's why I've stopped buying for now. I have A-10C and the Shark. Great to learn the planes, but sim wise, it's kind of just like shooting ducks in a barrel. Gets old fast.

 

 

If you're going to have helicopters and Attack planes, you need a surface World. That means FPS. That means vehicles. That means infantry. Otherwise, what is their really to do?


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I having been trying DCS 2.5 for a month now. Whether I stay with it, or not, depends on what I will have available via Combined Arms. I thought there was going to be a new Combine Arms release?

 

 

 

If, DCS is going to remain just a flight sim for aircraft, I have other and better options out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people consider flight sim only boring. This is why we are probably more niche than even Steel Beasts.

 

Niche sims don't make money.

 

 

It's why I've stopped buying for now. I have A-10C and the Shark. Great to learn the planes, but sim wise, it's kind of just like shooting ducks in a barrel. Gets old fast.

 

 

If you're going to have helicopters and Attack planes, you need a surface World. That means FPS. That means vehicles. That means infantry. Otherwise, what is their really to do?

 

Some nice thoughts there:

 

1) Synergy benefits for the air warfare (helicopters, ground attack)

 

This is really the best reason to work on CA, to make the target and threat environment richer for the air units. And after all DCS is a flight simulator - that is their business today. There are interesting interfaces between the air and the ground.

 

For one thing, the air defense network is a large aspect of air warfare. For what I know it's already there - what's missing is extending player control of SAM sites and such.

 

2) Broadening the scope brings more players (vehicle/infantry sim or CA in general)

 

With better vehicle features DCS could achieve a larger audience. Tanks are attractive and infantry warfare is a popular topic - also one that has always been essential in warfare. Some people are primarily looking for combined arms games - ie. a full tactical or operational environment that is not focused on just one branch of service. Some players might be more interested in commanding on the operational level than playing at the lowest tactical level (1st person).

 

Gaming software is developing and the competitors are adopting combined arms approaches. DCS needs to follow suit to be a market leader and continue attracting certain segments of their potential customer base.

 

3) We need 1st person control of everything

 

This is actually a bit of an odd proposal. An enjoyable infantry simulator would need several years of focused development. For starters, a good infantry map has all kinds of small terrain formations and objects, from garden sheds to pebbles and little bushes. The maps tend to be 12km accross not 1200km - also note it's related to the rate of movement.

 

What would be the benefit to air combat in 1st person infantry? The interfaces between air units and infantry are limited - in case of helicopters you do have fire exchanged both ways, in terms of small arms and manpads. The former is not a major threat for helicopters while manpads can be more of a game changer. So - if we introduced 1st person launching of manpads, would we have a good infantry simulator? No we wouldn't, and I'm not sure why anyone would like to play a manpad carrier when you could control SAM systems, AA vehicles or interceptors instead for a greater effect...

 

I could see maybe tanks being worked on as a 1st person platform - they are often a high profile asset, so as a tanker you can make an impact on the battlefield. Push objectives, or counter mechanized assaults, hunt and take out straggling AA units etc. Would need a lot of work to make work well.

 

At the same time, everything could be made to work in RTS format. It makes more sense for the player to be a company or battallion commander than even a tank (platoon?) commander. You have a greater impact on the battle. It's common for games with a larger scale to involve a RTS or strategic control UI than a 1st person one that might be preferred at the individual, fireteam or platoon level even (1st person strategy). This level of gameplay also hangs together better with the size of the maps which cannot have too great detail. ED will have to dance over abstractions like survivability of infantry that doesn't appear to be behind cover etc - it's been done before look at Steel Panther II, better maybe take the WarGame approach where cover is abstracted (inside forest, buildings as a state rather than a physical location involving LoS and trajectory) and infantry in the open dies very quickly.

 

What I'm saying it's essential to give the players control, and for the size of an unit which has an impact comparable to use of air assets in the typical time span of a mission in DCS. RTS style interfaces are a good way to provide this as you can get all the control you need at the higher tactical level. A first person interface is optional, but usually doesn't bring significant benefits when the RTS interface is already there.


Edited by Varis

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unofficial roadmap has a better damage model (including vehicles), infantry transport capacity for vehicles and a CA campaign coming, all are listed under 2018, some planned and some in progress state. Might mean we see some interesting releases early next year, but unless CA 2.0 brings some more important features, I don't see it as a big game changer yet. However more opportunities are opened and ED has also bumped up the price of the CA module so I'd think something is on their radar though it hasn't been yet communicated.

 

What I'd think could be priority items in CA would be an improved RTS interface/unit control and player micromanagement over SAM systems (high profile air defenses).


Edited by Varis

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) We need 1st person control of everything

This is actually a bit of an odd proposal. An enjoyable infantry simulator would need several years of focused development. For starters, a good infantry map has all kinds of small terrain formations and objects, from garden sheds to pebbles and little bushes. The maps tend to be 12km accross not 1200km - also note it's related to the rate of movement.

 

 

Actually, we would need only a few km of good terrain. Mostly less. The game I showed above had tiny maps, but were supported by helicopters bringing in troops, and then support for those troops by the door gunners.

And actually, DCS wouldn't even have to build the terrain and objects if they will just give the community the tools to build their own. I know some mappers who would jump at the opportunity to build small combat maps within the DCS terrain. Most of the terrain for huge air battles is FINE right now. We don't need the whole map. Just a few tiny spots where we can set up some missions. An old abandoned castle housing a terrorist base. An old chemical factory. A military installation. Even some houses in a small village. FPS games have been around since UT1. It shouldn't be much trouble to make in 2018.

 

 

Walking around after bailing out of my F-18 in the Persian Gulf map, I was pretty impressed by the map. Night was well done, and you could see and hear the jets roaring overhead. It was dark and spooky, and felt realistic. I like how they did a good job with environmental sounds. So many fps games miss that, relying solely on graphics. The vehicles already have very well done modeling and outer skins. They just need realistic insides and made into modules just like the planes.

 

 

What really kills me right now, is how infantry and vehicles just seem to sit around. It's like there is no intelligence behind them.

 

 

What would be the benefit to air combat in 1st person infantry? The interfaces between air units and infantry are limited - in case of helicopters you do have fire exchanged both ways, in terms of small arms and manpads. The former is not a major threat for helicopters while manpads can be more of a game changer.

 

 

Those engines don't have armor around them, as far as I know. Maybe against 7.62, but I bet a .50 could pierce them. Again, this is the infantry simulation part, with helicopters and attack jets harassing the entrenched enemy and providing cover to the advancing infantry and vehicles. Infantry is not only used to take a position, but to hold it. It would be small, special forces type missions at first, attacking terrorist targets, retrieving information, taking out high value targets, etc. Then, maybe later, as the network gets better, you could have larger battles.

 

 

And of course, you could have large RTS type battles with AI infantry and vehicles as well. The FPS ability would make them far more interesting, I'm sure.

 

 

The unofficial roadmap has a better damage model (including vehicles), infantry transport capacity for vehicles and a CA campaign coming, all are listed under 2018, some planned and some in progress state. Might mean we see some interesting releases early next year, but unless CA 2.0 brings some more important features, I don't see it as a big game changer yet. However more opportunities are opened and ED has also bumped up the price of the CA module so I'd think something is on their radar though it hasn't been yet communicated.

 

What I'd think could be priority items in CA would be an improved RTS interface/unit control and player micromanagement over SAM systems (high profile air defenses).

 

 

Anything would be better than the simple sitting ducks that we have right now.


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...