What is the future of CA? - Page 14 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2018, 10:49 AM   #131
Silver_Dragon
ED Translator
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arafo, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 5,728
Send a message via MSN to Silver_Dragon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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.
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Spanish 4Th Perrus Squadon Member: http://www.4thperrus.com

Last edited by Silver_Dragon; 10-09-2018 at 12:22 PM.
Silver_Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 06:00 PM   #132
pepin1234
Senior Member
 
pepin1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon View Post
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.
__________________
pepin1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 06:15 PM   #133
Silver_Dragon
ED Translator
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arafo, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 5,728
Send a message via MSN to Silver_Dragon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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.
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Spanish 4Th Perrus Squadon Member: http://www.4thperrus.com

Last edited by Silver_Dragon; 10-09-2018 at 06:30 PM.
Silver_Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 06:44 PM   #134
pepin1234
Senior Member
 
pepin1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon View Post
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.
__________________
pepin1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 06:57 PM   #135
Silver_Dragon
ED Translator
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arafo, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 5,728
Send a message via MSN to Silver_Dragon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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.
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Spanish 4Th Perrus Squadon Member: http://www.4thperrus.com
Silver_Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 11:32 PM   #136
3WA
Junior Member
 
3WA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepin1234 View Post
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!


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.

Last edited by 3WA; 10-10-2018 at 11:44 PM.
3WA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 08:09 PM   #137
Kang
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 401
Default

Actually, despite all the nice ideas for new vehicle functions, I personally would like the future of CA to acknowledge it needs a major overhaul in the user interface as a strategy game.
Kang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 12:21 AM   #138
3WA
Junior Member
 
3WA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 87
Default

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.
3WA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 07:23 AM   #139
M1Combat
Member
 
M1Combat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Prescott AZ, US
Posts: 451
Default

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.
__________________
Win-10 x64

Nvidia GTX970 (HTC Vive)
MSI Z77 MPower
Core i5-3570K
24GB G-Skill Trident-X

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals
(UCR - mapping throttle and clutch pedals together to form a rudder Axis)
GamesCom/Plantronics 780 USB Headset
M1Combat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 06:05 PM   #140
Varis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Finland
Posts: 12
Default

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.:

Spoiler:
  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?)

Last edited by Varis; 10-14-2018 at 10:19 PM.
Varis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.