Jump to content

What is the future of CA?


Recommended Posts

I've seen a lot of unofficial talk on the forums about the direction and future of Combined Arms. People frequently say "they are working on it", but we never see anything official. In a game dominated by flight modules, Combined Arms still feels mostly unfinished and is riddled with several game-breaking bugs:

 

1. AI Vehicles with no visibility restrictions

2. Projectiles passing through objectives

3. Vehicles getting stuck stuck reloading.

 

Then we have some ugly aspects:

1. No damage models (hit point system)

2. Extremely poor thermals

3. No infantry model - no way to mount/dismount

 

 

I, as I'm sure many others, are curious as to where this module is going. DCS World has a powerful engine, and Combined Arms has much potential for integration with the many air-assets.

 

Some of us want to see it go further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know this is the back burner of modules but I'm with you Apocalypse31. I don't think I have seen any "official" word on it in quite a while. As someone who only really plays MP Co-op CA is a great tool even in its current state. To know what the official roadmap on it is would be great. I would be more than happy with the path finding, damage model, more units and infantry being added first prior to any updates in the FPS part of the module.

VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group One | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that CA should be about everything else than simulator for ground vehicles like a Steel Beasts is, or a infantry simulator like a ARMA is.

 

Instead I think it should be more like a Wargame by Eugene Systems. More like a Wargame:Airland battles.

 

And then simulate a more complex and useful systems like a GCI or design missions on the mission board for other pilots to pick and fly etc.

 

The CA doesn't work well when we don't have good but points system, like detracting a vehicle by bombs hitting 30-50m from them, a rockets destroying prisms and radios or jamming weapons etc.

 

For a infantry I would like to see a system copied from a many RTS games like Company of Heroes where your cursor informed the protection level for ground where troops were going. And that you could put infantry inside buildings etc.

 

But, I would remove the direct control even in that amount unless zooming to very close, and instead use a realistic commanding where it is ordered the positions, tasks routes and schedule for them. Like command a infantry company to take a defensive positions in X,Y hill, toward north-east and prepare a defensive positions in 2 hours. This would be done simply drawing on map a defensive line, direction of expected enemy, setting a time when positions needs to be prepared and then assign a rally route and position.

 

This way just let the AI do the micro management. While it can be nice for some to fire a MANPAD toward aircrafts, I think it is out of the class CA would be good at. I would even remove the direct control from vehicles and make it RTS. Sure a SAM systems could be manner more like in SAM Simulator allows, but I don't see yet so much reasons to drive a individual vehicles and operate them otherwise.

 

One problem is as well that CA is slow paced, a simple task like move a tank platoon 20km is long time, and we can do more with aircrafts in that time.

 

The other alternative is that ED will abandon the CA, as it has been so many times in special sales. Or they simply don't know what to do with it as they don't have time or even plans to improve it (or ways as 2.0 wasn't out).

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fri13, that sounds amazing! Get on it. :) I didn't really think about it but you're right. Outside of a being able to set a unit to JTAC and see out of it in the first person, CA does not need any direct view for it's vehicles. A move to have it act more like an RTS would just be... wow. Perfect.

VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group One | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA will continue to be developed I hope. They have put a lot of resources to get this far and I think much of the commander role functions is great. The Commander roles was the primary reason to develop CA I believe and they must be used for tactics and a more advanced battlefield in their current form. There were never any talk about CA developing in to a FPS game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead I think it should be more like a Wargame by Eugene Systems. More like a Wargame:Airland battles.

 

That is an interesting perspective, and this is how I currently play the game. There are too many bugs to operate in first person. CA isn't that bad in an RTS capacity. I've made a few maps that have Company Sized groups (~14 vehicles) and they can pathfind decently.

 

The other alternative is that ED will abandon the CA, as it has been so many times in special sales. Or they simply don't know what to do with it as they don't have time or even plans to improve it (or ways as 2.0 wasn't out).

 

I certainly hope not. It has lots of potential, and can dominate the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

 

1. AI Vehicles with no visibility restrictions - We were told this would be looked at, but more so with the newer map tech.

2. Projectiles passing through objectives - Same as above

3. Vehicles getting stuck stuck reloading. - Is there a bug thread somewhere that you can reference so I can confirm the issue is reported?

 

Then we have some ugly aspects:

1. No damage models (hit point system) - DM in the aircraft will get love first I would thing, I would hope that would have a trickle down effect.

2. Extremely poor thermals - Already planned to be fixed

3. No infantry model - no way to mount/dismount - Skeletal animations should bring a whole host of new options for infantry

 

 

CA was never meant to be a simulation on the level of the aircraft modules. That said, work isnt abandoned on it by any means, but its not all just dependant on the CA module itself, some of its core game aspects. And we all know they are buy with the maps and making the switch to the new formats. All this takes time.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA will continue to be developed I hope. They have put a lot of resources to get this far and I think much of the commander role functions is great. The Commander roles was the primary reason to develop CA I believe and they must be used for tactics and a more advanced battlefield in their current form. There were never any talk about CA developing in to a FPS game.

They have never said so, but MANPAD gave hope to some that there would be similar to operation flashpoint level gameplay. Or then the deep vehicle simulators like M1A1 (for what ED asked information etc).

 

As I would find it boring to be a soldier in a DCS level of battlefield... far from OFP, ARMA or especially battlefield/call of Duty.

 

But still we have a MANPADs as we have SAM and SPAAG etc. And yet I find those as well boring, but it is my opinion.

 

the SAM Simulator is great, but when you really are only in a SAM.... it in other way doesn't make a sense.

 

With a increased amount of combat helicopters, I do see a fun to mount a roof MG in urban combat etc.

 

But individual soldier? A vehicle driver? No.... a vehicle commander at best, more like a platoon leader or similar...

 

It there is lot to do, like I prove terrain to give reasonable cover and concealment for ground units and cause fear to aircraft pilots....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
We don't need CA to be a simulation - but there are several game-breaking bugs.

 

I think what we have is something that lands between Steel Beasts and the Battlefield series - which is OK, but the bugs need to go.

 

Nobody wants bugs, but some can take longer to fix than others, and as I said, they have sunk a lot of resources into the transition to the new map tech.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody wants bugs, but some can take longer to fix than others, and as I said, they have sunk a lot of resources into the transition to the new map tech.

 

:poster_offtopic:SiTh, LOL, I think this is one of the first times I've agreed with you or another Mod.

 

I love DCS and flight simming in general but I've never been an ED "fanboy" (not saying you guys are) ED's corporate and market decisions drive me batty if I take the time to dwell on them. But I fully believe you that they must be dumping a lot of resources into the merge and I have to guess that once that monster is put to bed that we'll see increased speed of development on the other aspects/modules, even CA. :)

 

I still think the future is very bright for us DCS players... now will I get to enjoy that future while my 3 year old is still a toddler or will I be raving about it to her while she drives me to the old folks home after my weekend visit to see my grand-kids... that's the kicker. :pilotfly::smartass:poster_offtopic.gif

 

--I still vote for an overhaul and re-work of the whole CA module. It's the one time I think more "realism" isn't needed on the F1 view. These guys have sold me in the last couple of posts. If you want an armored sim go take out a second mortgage and get Steel Beasts Pro. Fix the mentioned bugs and focus on adding to the abilities of the tactical commander and I'll re-buy it as a new module. The only F1 view I think needs to be kept is for that human JTAC/Observer role with the laser, binos and smoke ability. Other than that F2 and F10 all the way.

VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group One | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody wants bugs, but some can take longer to fix than others, and as I said, they have sunk a lot of resources into the transition to the new map tech.

And many of us can't even gasp what are the possibilities when we start seeing a new map technologies, pass the eye candy naturally....

Of course it means they need to be fairly flexible ;-)

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back, Wags was looking for info on the Abrams, I was hoping that meant we would get an module for that somewhere down the road.....

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Gigabyte GA97XSLI

Core i7 4790 @ 4.0 Ghz

MSI GTX 1080ti

32 Mb RAM DDR3-2133

512GB SSD for DCS

HP Reverb VR HMD

Thrustmaster Warthog & MFG Crosswind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one would love to see some major work go into CA. I use it for almost every coop mission I run with my group and the commander function is just awesome. More in depth vehicles or infantry would be awesome, but I would also like an RTS style overhead 3D view that could be used by the commander. I think this could be done with relatively low amount of work and add so much to the commander experience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED direction

 

On but Off Topic.:hmm:

 

Great fan of DCS since -Blackshark1 = Wonderful stuff and A10C-talented people!

 

However since getting back into DCS, I feel its lost its direction (this thread being a good example of this).

Its core was- Modern and modernish? jets, helis etc. In my opinion its spread itself too far - WW2? Normandy, CA,. Nevada map?

Before anyone gets upset - I think that these projects are fine, but please please concentrate on the core of the sim and what got DCS up there in the first place!!

Quality aircraft and maps with a team improving and debugging what weve got.

Despite my quiet rant, I am a huge fan of these talented and hard working people - but please please focus on your core and spread out slowly.

But hey if you can produce all this and control it then great!:).

 

A concerned fan

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] This must be reality, no sim can have this many bugs!

13700kf, 4090, 64gb.  HP g2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want a high fidelity tank module. My hopes for that are high since Wags was searching for some documentation on the M1 Abrams a while ago.

And Ships! I want a high fidelity ship module as well!

The game is called DCS World: Air - Sea - Land Combat for a reason ;)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wags was searching for some documentation on the M1 Abrams a while ago.

 

I'd have to dig, but I believe this was over two years ago. Is this something that's legitimately still in the works or just another forgotten project?

 

Also - Eagle Dynamics turned down eSim (Steel Beasts) request to produce a module. I'm not sure why - I'm not asking, it's not my place - but I'll never understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to dig, but I believe this was over two years ago. Is this something that's legitimately still in the works or just another forgotten project?

 

I'm not sure when that was and I can't find it anymore. Maybe it got deleted? I also don't know if it is still in the works or if it ever has been. I just know Wags asked for M1 docs at one point.

 

 

Also - Eagle Dynamics turned down eSim (Steel Beasts) request to produce a module. I'm not sure why - I'm not asking, it's not my place - but I'll never understand.

 

That's new to me. Where did you hear that?

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I believe the story goes there was some discussion, but at the time of the discussions DCS World wasnt in a position for a ground module, I know there was atleast one other person working on a tank sim wanting to do a module for ED. A lot has to be done to get it where it needs to be for such a module, its possible ED wants to get there first to set the framework.

 

All this is purely my understanding of course, I was not privy to any discussions, if any with any of the above groups.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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