What is the future of CA?

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. ;)

I think a lot of public servers are reluctant to add CA because it can be ripe for trolling and/or if improperly utilized can break/ruin a mission. Now that being said, in willing and able hands CA would be a great immersive factor including human JTAC and intelligent ground battles. Adding things like LotATC and Simple Radio/Universal radio increases this immersion even more. So as long as a server can be well moderated then CA roles could really increase popularity among the masses, and maybe accelerating its upgrades from ED down the road.

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.

I agree that is a totally different group of players there, talking about FPS players. Not a bad thing, just a different gaming experience.

To me the problem is the level of detail that you would need to model the universe in order to really make FPS look halfway decent. Right now we cannot even figure out trees, to say nothing of the inside of buildings, moving up and downstairs, etc. So it would be such a long, long way to go.

There are so many things that CA could do well, with only just a little love and TLC. Let's go get the low-hanging fruit first, and implement those improvements and go from there!

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

BTW, since we are digging up old news, I want to tell you that I did just what you suggested. MOOSE is the way to go for building missions, particularly for campaigns. Random placement, within certain parameters and random waypoints, also within certain parameters/areas, and really robust use of unit templates -- very easy to quickly put together great missions and reuse them in other parts of the map.

One of these days I will revisit this, but I can tell you that I am a big believer in MOOSE for managing the majority of AI ground units.

May I ask what MOOSE is? Except a big, horned thing hunters shoot at :) .

Right now, on some nice servers, through CTLD, helicopters are taking the role the CA (could have) had.

In many CA-included missions I played online, 159th GAR for instance had massive units. The problem was, and probably still is, that some CA players would start an all out assault by moving all units, and that would induce a comparably massive lag and/or FPS drop for all players. So, the admins would intervene if more than five units were moved at the same moment. Both in those missions on HolloPointe, which were more balanced, and on 159th GAR, objectives could have been reached either by planes/helicopters or by CA alone, or combined.

But the super fast mutually assisted assault by armor and strikers... Wow.

And I don't want to start about both difficulties and enjoyment when using SAMs and AAA in defense of your units. Or when you roll your tanks straight to enemy FARP or airbase (game over, basically) :)

May I ask what MOOSE is? Except a big, horned thing hunters shoot at :) .

Mission Object Oriented Scripting Environment

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=138043

Right now, on some nice servers, through CTLD, helicopters are taking the role the CA (could have) had.

What do you mean by this? In terms of ground attack, or in terms of moving troops to/from battlefield objectives?

The problem was, and probably still is, that some CA players would start an all out assault by moving all units, and that would induce a comparably massive lag and/or FPS drop for all players.

So here when you refer to a CA player, this is a guy operating as a tactile commander, moving the 'chess pieces' around the board -- is that correct?

Did these guys also jump into ground units from time to time? Or did you have others that played those roles? In your opinion, what was an optimal amount of CA players, in what roles?

objectives could have been reached either by planes/helicopters or by CA alone, or combined.

This is the way I would prefer it. Provide the tools and leave it up to the players to figure out the best tactical strategy to get it done. But that said, I like the missions where it would be really hard to win without having some success on the ground, and vice versa.

Interesting comments. One of these days I will have to play MP and see for myself how all this works.

What do you mean by this? In terms of ground attack, or in terms of moving troops to/from battlefield objectives?

Transporting SAMs and other units and conquering enemy bases.

So here when you refer to a CA player, this is a guy operating as a tactile commander, moving the 'chess pieces' around the board -- is that correct?

 

Did these guys also jump into ground units from time to time? Or did you have others that played those roles? In your opinion, what was an optimal amount of CA players, in what roles?

They usually practice both roles, but the main problem usually happened then some of guys would try to recreate berserker version of WW3 scenario in a role of tactical commander.

Even one irresponsible player, so-to-speak, in a role of Tactical commander can induce massive problems for all players and the server itself. Having two tactical commanders on each side with multiple JTAC or other individual roles can work fine (provided that there is a server admin oversight or few controllable units). So, if a player wants some ground action, and Tactical commander slots are occupied, he can take an individual tank or SAM and contribute to the effort.

I just had an idea how some of the problems I mentioned could be resolved. I don't if it's possible, but it's an idea. By having country-specific Tactical commanders and just several units from each country in a coalition, I believe massive movements could be prevented.

Regarding the JTAC:

- You can play as MANPAD and it's Ok for now, but a proper JTAC model would be nice indeed.

- The infantry fight could be limited to pointing a target and pressing 'engage' , or giving an order (flank, suppress, get cover, deploy smoke, ambush etc)

- Snipers could be fun: Both ordering them to take down HVT or to call CAS to kill one. Also, no need for First Person simulation IMHO. Just point at a target , then the sniper would have a percentage probability to hit the target. Press engage...also , possibility to sneak up, dig-in, get on a roof or in a house, etc....

- Really don't see a point with those JTAC binoculars. I mean, why it seems like you are looking through a monocular rather then binos ? Possibility to equip something like this would be nice too:

- I am not a military expert , but deploying smoke is a bit weird. It comes from nowhere. I think actually equipping your JTAC with let's say m203 underslung of a rifle and actually firing the smoke grenades would be cool. Or deploying your smoke grenades, or to have a group with a portable mortar for target marking.

- The smoke is too accurate. There should be a spread.

And talking about mortar.

- The artillery should have a choice of firing given number of rounds and type of round (for example marking rounds).

- It's a bit funny that you , yourself give the spread and if you don't the shells hit the actual spot.

If the artillery is sorted the JTAC would have a larger array of weaponry.

- I think very important thing is make it possible for units to board/disembark form vehicles and helicopters.

- I know you can pickup/deploy troops from mi-8 and possibly Huey too ? That's great, but it could be extanded to pickup MANPADS (JTACs) too.

- FLIR - a poper FLIR simulation. That goes to the A-10C FLIR as well.

- Would be awesome if the ejected pilot was synced. We do CSAR missions and it's a bit of a shame, that you can actually move around after ejecting, but nobody sees you.

Also I believe boarding the helicopters as a shotdown pilot is probably more of a bug-feature than an actual feature :-)

Just dreaming....

Ah OK I see what the issue is here. Really I think what you need is a decent level-headed guy in that role as TC, probably no way around it.

I just had an idea how some of the problems I mentioned could be resolved. I don't if it's possible, but it's an idea. By having country-specific Tactical commanders and just several units from each country in a coalition, I believe massive movements could be prevented.

I don't think you can have country specific Tactical Commanders. Somebody can correct me, but I am pretty sure they are able to control the full contingent of RED/BLUE coalition forces regardless.

Ah OK I see what the issue is here. Really I think what you need is a decent level-headed guy in that role as TC, probably no way around it.

 

 

 

I don't think you can have country specific Tactical Commanders. Somebody can correct me, but I am pretty sure they are able to control the full contingent of RED/BLUE coalition forces regardless.

And it ain't good thing. I wrote a wish about Tactical Commander feature to CA a year or two ago, about how the CA side is made in command structure. A highest level was about strategies, but not commanding the ground units like micromanagement. They just laid the objectives and routes, time tables etc. Just like you would do normally. And they ain't required to be online all the time.

And then comes the lower level commanders that supervise the execution of those by allocating a captains and lieutenants companies and platoons. And these lower level people can jump to vehicles and do what wanted.

This means you are really giving like a small amount of units and single objective for individual. While commanders having the battalion size to control, while there might ever be more than 2-3 and typically just one, when the individual player is general, commander as well everything else.

But CA is currently designed for 1 player on CA, maybe on both sides. So it is fairly limited.

Well, having levels of command and control is an intriguing idea. Not sure how that might be implemented within the game engine.

I would agree that CA is currently designed for 1 player as Tactical Commander, that is one on each side, as you say. But CA can still accommodate others if they want to operate 'on the ground' as specific units. But there needs to be clear delineation as to who does what -- no different than it would be for pilot roles.

Mobile SAM shooters and JTAC/recon units are still very fun roles to play, and one guy can really impact a battle in those roles -- particularly if he is able to coordinate well with the TC.

What you really need to have is likeminded people, I suppose. People fighting on the same side have to understand the mission, and understand that there are limited resources, in terms of coalition forces, and that victory can be achieved only by deploying and supporting those resources wisely. Sending all your AI units headfirst into enemy defenses is stupid, yet Rabb tells us that this is such a problem that server admins have to manage this. How sad is that?

I think CA is fine for doing very small missions with a collaborative aspect. A ground player, maybe a few air players... it works okay. It's not amazing, it had problems... it was also only $10. Not to say my expectations were met, exactly, but I'm not expecting the world from a $10 product.

More to the point, though, I would _gladly_ pay more for a more evolved product that achieved the #1 goal the product seems to want to achieve: providing meaningful context for the air war that is being simulated up above. There are various abstractions of this in the Blue Flag server and others, but all of them are transparent and disappointing. The result is that often aircraft are just flying around, doing their own thing, in a very disorganized fashion. The other result is that most players are only flying air-to-air. Air-to-air combat only exists, of course, in order to maintain air superiority for your bombers. Bombers only exist to effect the battle on the ground. In other words, what we currently have in servers is the exact opposite of how it should really function. If your motivation came from being able to see the actual ground war, and to be able to interact with it in some meaningful way or another (I personally do not think we need a tank sim of any kind in order to do this), it would make a huge echo throughout the entire DCS experience.

I'm repeating myself, but:

I like CA, but it desperately needs more unarmored units. There is practically no use for machineguns or rockets. We need sagger team, MG nests, technicals...etc.

THEN we can have meaningful Huey/etc raids, or a good use for coax mgs that are currently not useful at all.

Also, the vehicles in CA should have more damage states. That could be done even with the hitpoint system, though it would be a poor man's solution. A vehicle that is damaged 70% stops moving. A vehicle that is damaged to 95% stops shooting. And you cannot know if the damaged vehicles are a threat or not, so you engage them again. Currently you know always after the hit that you can switch targets.

Agree with the hitpoints. Also , some more variations of kill animations. It seems to me all vehicles blow up just the same. Various kill animations and damage would be great,

That bothers me massively even without CA. Hit a vehicle, watch it smoke, know without fail it's going to brew up a few seconds later. It's rather dull. Improving on the vehicle AI would also be wonderful, so it's not just "oh we're being attacked let's panic and... drive 200m and then stop moving entirely." Evasion? Smoke? Cover? Where are these things?

The AI doesn't recognize trees in the Caucuses map at the moment, so looking for cover is not easy to implement at the moment if you ask me.

I agree with the points though, having the AI do something else than move of the road and stop would be better, maybe even have a panic parameter that it will just drive wildly around or something similar..

Cockpits :)

Please no AI in trees. Totally invisible with busted FLIR.

being able to jump in any unit as tactical commander !

soldier, AI plane, ground unit together with a JTAC binocular would already be a big help build information

which you can give to starting pilots

basically let the tactical commander build the knee boards for the pilots live during MP missions

would also make a more dynamic campaign possible

in mission where external view is turned off

let the information from awacs ,ground radar installations view able for the tactical commander

if pilots see an enemy position make them able to note the position maybe under an F10 mission key so all pilots have access to either destroy or avoid it

that for me is the biggest drawback now

you have to fly around till you get shot down to find enemy units

May I ask what MOOSE is? Except a big, horned thing hunters shoot at :) .

 

Right now, on some nice servers, through CTLD, helicopters are taking the role the CA (could have) had.

 

In many CA-included missions I played online, 159th GAR for instance had massive units. The problem was, and probably still is, that some CA players would start an all out assault by moving all units, and that would induce a comparably massive lag and/or FPS drop for all players. So, the admins would intervene if more than five units were moved at the same moment. Both in those missions on HolloPointe, which were more balanced, and on 159th GAR, objectives could have been reached either by planes/helicopters or by CA alone, or combined.

 

But the super fast mutually assisted assault by armor and strikers... Wow.

 

And I don't want to start about both difficulties and enjoyment when using SAMs and AAA in defense of your units. Or when you roll your tanks straight to enemy FARP or airbase (game over, basically) :)

Have a look here:

http://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE/

If you're interested, send me a PM.

FC

BTW, since we are digging up old news, I want to tell you that I did just what you suggested. MOOSE is the way to go for building missions, particularly for campaigns. Random placement, within certain parameters and random waypoints, also within certain parameters/areas, and really robust use of unit templates -- very easy to quickly put together great missions and reuse them in other parts of the map.

 

One of these days I will revisit this, but I can tell you that I am a big believer in MOOSE for managing the majority of AI ground units.

Thanks Riipcord,

@all, I just wished people would be open to try something new...

It is really hard to bring this message into this community.

The moose framework has been under development for about 1,5 years now. It has become a comprehensive framework for mission designers.

Especially for CA, there a lots of functions that are exciting to use.

Look to MOOSE as a puzzle. Little objects that you can combine to enhance your mission designs and create a wow effect ...

Have a look here for more information on the subject:

http://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE/

Send me a PM if you are interested, I can bring you on our MOOSe user community, which is now about 30 active users.

(Ps: MOOSE has become a sticky in the forums ...)

Fc.

Refloting the "necro post" again.

We see some "little" capabilities with can enter into CA scope on the last year.

- The new land based antiship and cruise missile launchers

- The incoming short range ballistic missiles (Scud).

- The incoming Animation infantry updates and Cows.

No news about CA on newsletters and on ED team interview, all "on hold" or "unknown". Expected with the future (far?) "RTS System" we can see more details with improve CA.

*AND* support for VR. That too is on hold.

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.

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.