Time to get the Combined Arms what DCS deserves?

About year ago I read the post in russian side forum that ED is searching a game developer with background of RTS game development etc, for redesigning the Combined Arms.

I think some others would be interested to know more about the plans, as even Wags has hinted about similar things in the F/A-18C and DCS 2.5 early access videos how the 2.5 now allows to bring more love to Combined Arms.

IMHO the DCS main weak point is the ground war. The aircrafts itself are top notch, what now some are in Early Access, some are waiting new technologies etc. But everything that is up in the air or on the sea, is all there because the ground troops. The terrain.

No matter how expensive or amazing an aircraft is, it is there only and only to support the ground troops. The ground troops are those who are doing all the heavy work, all the conquering, all the fighting, all the winning and making all political decisions to work. And everything else is just supporting them. If you don't have boots on the ground, you can't do anything anywhere, you can't have air dominance ever.

And that is what makes DCS World, IMHO, like a half-baked cake. And ED has the great answer for that, this Combined Arms, but so far it has been so simple, more like a way to shift the mission designer work to a another human that would do it in real time.

IMHO, Combined Arms should never be consider as a tank simulator or First Person Shooter but as a Real Time Strategy game, and by some points as a SAM commander/operator (there were few videos years back ED presenting a new MBT physics, acceleration, breaking etc... When they were still asking about contacts about people who has insights to M1 Abrams etc).

I have written about this earlier, now locked 1.2x series: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2315124&postcount=1 and would need to make a new updatd one for that idea, as it is about the RTS mechanics (didn't finish that post ever).

But if we get a better AI (multiple AI as I wrote in one another post that I don't now find) for ground units, that then would start to have a better affect to ground combat where units doesn't just go full front fight and get destroyed in seconds, but where everyone is trying to survive while completing their mission. As such situation would really enforce the importance of the air units to give them support, the dangers being a pilot and flying anywhere else than as designed and planned.

It would allow easier and nicer way to design missions as one doesn't need to know or use any of third party methods to get things working or use any "quick mission" what is really just two main forces going full assault and it lasts only 5min until hundreds of people are dead... Like when we really would see a 16 fighters to go in full attack over a tiny ground area, resulting only that couple will survive?

I absolutely agree. While 'drive a tank' seems to be a popular feature of CA, I'm absolutely convinced that its main focus should be commanding forces ('RTS'), JTAC operation and only then individual unit controls.

I have also expressed this sentiment in the past, that CA should focus exclusively on the RTS elements as you described. IMHO first person tanks/ground vehicles (if done at all) should be made as dedicated modules. Perhaps a ground equivalent of FC3 or something.

I received comments that this would be too slow/boring for the RTS commander but disagree. I believe managing a large number of units could be very engaging. Especially if some JTAC or FAC elements were cleverly added into the mix (rather than just first person lase).

Anyway just wanted to voice more support for this potential direction that CA could (and hopefully will) go.

Sent from my MediaPad using Tapatalk

Combined Arms should be much more, specially for $40. Right now it should cost $15.

Agree. The AI needs improvements in path finding, target LOS and reacting to threats.

We should also have a basic implementation to use SA-10, SA-11, Hawk, SA-6 as we have with the smaller sams right now.

Few things

.Get it on the sale, it's $20 and only $5 for the Georgia campaign

.the Georgia campaign is what you are describing.

.it needs a tutorial or something on how to use it. I have no idea, I bought the Georgia campaign and man I have no idea what I am doing. I use it for JTAC.

.I think if someone did a ton of Youtube tutorial videos on it, it would get a lot more people into CA.

CA and Georgia campaign have lots of potential, but I am in the same situation as you. I have no idea about what to do, I need some training missions or tutorials.

Combined arms is one helluva greek tragedy, they really need to aim towards the RTS aspect and I think a key part of that will be the dynamic campaign engine.

I'd be quite happy if someone was playing Wargame then just threw out JTAC requests.

Christ alive I'd be satisfied if it was still a pre programmed robot JTAC just relaying the command from the player on the ground to the air support, anything to make the ground feel alive.

Operation Bactria is the closest I've come to feeling like something is actually happening on the ground.

I played "TOTAL WAR" strategy and real-time battles, for years.

And I would prefer to see combined arms moving more that way.

I played "TOTAL WAR" strategy and real-time battles, for years.

And I would prefer to see combined arms moving more that way.

Then maybe you should keep an eye on my project?

(i know ... self-promotion somewhats stinks ... ^^)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3302044#post3302044

As a guy who just spent 3 hours JTACing for a huge inter-squadron DCS event, I think it would be a real mistake to turn CA into an RTS.

Simply put, turning it into an RTS would make it so that battles develop even faster than they already do at times, which actually reduces the effect all these aircraft are going to have in a battlefield so dynamic that they (and their controllers) won't be able to cope with the changing situation. In reality, battles develop very slowly by comparison. The fog of war, friction, moving from cover to cover, time it takes to communicate and interpret orders, and self-preservation instincts of people make it that way, as do the suppressive effects of fires on the battlefield.

In CA right now, I can already order a platoon of M1A1s to charge like cavalry into a line of T-90s and get slaughtered by ATGMs. Making CA even more gamey will have unintended consequences of eliminating any real semblance of future ground simulation.

Now that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate certain aspects of RTS games implemented into CA (the Suppression mechanics of the Steel Division series would be great, as would more transparency to the user about unit behaviors and why they are or are not following orders).

But what I'd really appreciate far more are more "instructor station" controls, similar to Zeus in the Arma series. Something that gives a game master, JTAC, ABM/AWACS/GCI, or C2 agency more control over what is shown to the players to tell a story or make a battle end up like they'd like it to.

Functions like:

• Ambient battlefield effects such as smokescreens, artillery smoke marks, or artillery illumination flares.
  
• Ambient battle effects such as ineffective tracer fire simulating suppressing a target, without ammunition constraints.
  
• Artillery strikes that could be set to hit a target at a specific TOT, for use suppressing (or simulating the suppression of) targets or threats.
  
• More dynamic, automated unit movement (such as maneuvering infantry forces, tanks jockeying in and out of cover, etc.)
  
• Dynamic game master control over weather, to simulate changing conditions (impending sandstorms/duststorms/thunderstorms)
  
• Synchronized clouds between multiplayer clients so that we can actually use them.
  
• Longer lasting fires and smoke plumes for destroyed targets, or customizable dynamic smoke plumes.
  
• Dust trails left by moving vehicles in desert environments, for easier target target recognition at a distance.
  

The implementation of features like these would open up a world of opportunity in multiplayer and make CA more than worth its current pricetag. If you've ever played one of Baltic_Dragon's single-player campaigns, imagine that but dynamically generated by a Game/Dungeon Master and a cadre of role-players fulfilling various interactive speaking roles.

As it stands now, I can't even show players ground forces moving and shooting each other without possibly jeopardizing the target I'm calling them in on being destroyed before they get there!

IMHO, CA shouldn't be catering to a Team Deathmatch crowd, it should exist to serve the air combat immersion and provide for a great flying experience.

i'd just settle for being able to use it in 4K or in VR. VR doesn't work and isn't supported, head movements are reversed, all sorts of other glitches. I had recently gotten a 4K monitor and relauched to my favourite server in non VR mode only to get a quarter screen overlay in binolcular mode and gunsights - it wasn't playable.

The problems don't stop there though, but it's off topic and it doesn't really matter to the OP. Just saying because before you can decide what it is, you have to get it basically working at fundamental levels, firstly.

Most of this will be for naught if they dont fix the path following AI. From the beginning vehicles still cant negotiate obstacles and get stuck on buildings which kills the whole immersion.

It needs work yes, but I don't think we are the ones who should be telling ED how to make CA, it's their product, their rules.

This is the only module I'm asking myself why I bought it, this thing isn't worth the price, in few years I don't see any big improvment in it. Controlling fleet, changing emcon, things like that would improve CA but I don't think this is happening soon. :noexpression:

I love my RTS and would consider moving CA to such a game mode a positive step for a couple of improvements.

Firstly, having played the Combat Mission Series of games, a really intriguing feature of AI is unit effectiveness under fire; ie being pinned, panic level/experience, and in the case of armor or crewed vehicles, mobility kills due to crew incapacitation. Having a unit ignoring commands because their morale has hit rock bottom due to losses would be an added dimension that i don't think would add too much overhead to the game.

Secondly, I would consider it a huge improvement to have a few more tiers of command level, with the ability to communicate between subordinates and central command affected by line of sight and availability of comms equipment. Not sure if LoS is implemented in CA in it's current build (haven't played in a wee while). Having an MP game where there is more than commander and JTAC slots to occupy, say for M1A2 platoon commanders to be occupied by a player, taking orders from from a Section commander and subsequently from the battlefield commander, and relaying real time battlefield conditions back up the chain. The AI under the command of the tank platoon command player would be subject to the morale and experience penalties.

Just my 5c.

+1

As a guy who just spent 3 hours JTACing for a huge inter-squadron DCS event, I think it would be a real mistake to turn CA into an RTS.

 

Simply put, turning it into an RTS would make it so that battles develop even faster than they already do at times, which actually reduces the effect all these aircraft are going to have in a battlefield so dynamic that they (and their controllers) won't be able to cope with the changing situation. In reality, battles develop very slowly by comparison. The fog of war, friction, moving from cover to cover, time it takes to communicate and interpret orders, and self-preservation instincts of people make it that way, as do the suppressive effects of fires on the battlefield.

 

In CA right now, I can already order a platoon of M1A1s to charge like cavalry into a line of T-90s and get slaughtered by ATGMs. Making CA even more gamey will have unintended consequences of eliminating any real semblance of future ground simulation.

 

Now that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate certain aspects of RTS games implemented into CA (the Suppression mechanics of the Steel Division series would be great, as would more transparency to the user about unit behaviors and why they are or are not following orders).

 

But what I'd really appreciate far more are more "instructor station" controls, similar to Zeus in the Arma series. Something that gives a game master, JTAC, ABM/AWACS/GCI, or C2 agency more control over what is shown to the players to tell a story or make a battle end up like they'd like it to.

 

Functions like:

• Ambient battlefield effects such as smokescreens, artillery smoke marks, or artillery illumination flares.
  
• Ambient battle effects such as ineffective tracer fire simulating suppressing a target, without ammunition constraints.
  
• Artillery strikes that could be set to hit a target at a specific TOT, for use suppressing (or simulating the suppression of) targets or threats.
  
• More dynamic, automated unit movement (such as maneuvering infantry forces, tanks jockeying in and out of cover, etc.)
  
• Dynamic game master control over weather, to simulate changing conditions (impending sandstorms/duststorms/thunderstorms)
  
• Synchronized clouds between multiplayer clients so that we can actually use them.
  
• Longer lasting fires and smoke plumes for destroyed targets, or customizable dynamic smoke plumes.
  
• Dust trails left by moving vehicles in desert environments, for easier target target recognition at a distance.
  

 

The implementation of features like these would open up a world of opportunity in multiplayer and make CA more than worth its current pricetag. If you've ever played one of Baltic_Dragon's single-player campaigns, imagine that but dynamically generated by a Game/Dungeon Master and a cadre of role-players fulfilling various interactive speaking roles.

 

As it stands now, I can't even show players ground forces moving and shooting each other without possibly jeopardizing the target I'm calling them in on being destroyed before they get there!

 

IMHO, CA shouldn't be catering to a Team Deathmatch crowd, it should exist to serve the air combat immersion and provide for a great flying experience.

 

+1

As a guy who just spent 3 hours JTACing for a huge inter-squadron DCS event, I think it would be a real mistake to turn CA into an RTS.

 

Simply put, turning it into an RTS would make it so that battles develop even faster than they already do at times, which actually reduces the effect all these aircraft are going to have in a battlefield so dynamic that they (and their controllers) won't be able to cope with the changing situation. In reality, battles develop very slowly by comparison. The fog of war, friction, moving from cover to cover, time it takes to communicate and interpret orders, and self-preservation instincts of people make it that way, as do the suppressive effects of fires on the battlefield.

 

In CA right now, I can already order a platoon of M1A1s to charge like cavalry into a line of T-90s and get slaughtered by ATGMs. Making CA even more gamey will have unintended consequences of eliminating any real semblance of future ground simulation.

 

Now that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate certain aspects of RTS games implemented into CA (the Suppression mechanics of the Steel Division series would be great, as would more transparency to the user about unit behaviors and why they are or are not following orders).

 

But what I'd really appreciate far more are more "instructor station" controls, similar to Zeus in the Arma series. Something that gives a game master, JTAC, ABM/AWACS/GCI, or C2 agency more control over what is shown to the players to tell a story or make a battle end up like they'd like it to.

 

Functions like:

• Ambient battlefield effects such as smokescreens, artillery smoke marks, or artillery illumination flares.
  
• Ambient battle effects such as ineffective tracer fire simulating suppressing a target, without ammunition constraints.
  
• Artillery strikes that could be set to hit a target at a specific TOT, for use suppressing (or simulating the suppression of) targets or threats.
  
• More dynamic, automated unit movement (such as maneuvering infantry forces, tanks jockeying in and out of cover, etc.)
  
• Dynamic game master control over weather, to simulate changing conditions (impending sandstorms/duststorms/thunderstorms)
  
• Synchronized clouds between multiplayer clients so that we can actually use them.
  
• Longer lasting fires and smoke plumes for destroyed targets, or customizable dynamic smoke plumes.
  
• Dust trails left by moving vehicles in desert environments, for easier target target recognition at a distance.
  

 

The implementation of features like these would open up a world of opportunity in multiplayer and make CA more than worth its current pricetag. If you've ever played one of Baltic_Dragon's single-player campaigns, imagine that but dynamically generated by a Game/Dungeon Master and a cadre of role-players fulfilling various interactive speaking roles.

 

As it stands now, I can't even show players ground forces moving and shooting each other without possibly jeopardizing the target I'm calling them in on being destroyed before they get there!

 

IMHO, CA shouldn't be catering to a Team Deathmatch crowd, it should exist to serve the air combat immersion and provide for a great flying experience.

 

THIS. Spot on.

I'd like to see improvements with CA intelligence, unit cohesion, morale effects and much more detailed small arms integration. I'd love to see all the bugs of units ignoring commands flushed out as well.

As far as the interface and workflow of creating a mission, I'd like to see it streamlined but largely under the same format, I love the trigger system. Graphically the infantry units need a big update, but nothing to the level that the vehicles and pilot models have of course.

I'd love to see packs of Nato and Warsaw Pact troops from every decade premade and ready to deploy from squad to battalion/squadron size.

Key to dcs is firstly the ai. More realistic and variable spotting and networked recon / awareness

Improved pathing for reduced cpu load

Once these things are sorted it then opens up the ability to use it fully. Then it's time to improve the ui. Increase functionality of orders systems. Have the ability to either direct control or conduct directive control and have partial ai implementation of orders and objectives

Rts elements have usefulness in the ui they bring. You can have rts style gameplay without losing the simulation component that comes with c3. Logistics. Realistic ballistic simulation and realistic ai tactical decision making logics

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk