Infantry - Combined Arms

[jwflowersii]

Would it be possible for ED to partner with a third party to support infantry units with Combined Arms 2.0?  A Digital Combat Simulator would be fantastic if we could incorporate all aspects of warfare.  A full on FPS would be great addition.  Not many games have the scope and size of DCS.

 

- Helicopters could transport troops to an battle area and have more missions

- Troops would require cover and assistance from air assets
- Heightens the need for effective air defenses which makes manning SAMs and AAA more interesting
- JTAC and FAC functionality - nothing better than being able to call in airstrikes for you friendly troops

 

Maybe someday we'll be able to have a full combat simulator.  

[StevanJ]

6 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:

Would it be possible for ED to partner with a third party to support infantry units with Combined Arms 2.0?  A Digital Combat Simulator would be fantastic if we could incorporate all aspects of warfare.  A full on FPS would be great addition.  Not many games have the scope and size of DCS.

 

- Helicopters could transport troops to an battle area and have more missions

- Troops would require cover and assistance from air assets
- Heightens the need for effective air defenses which makes manning SAMs and AAA more interesting
- JTAC and FAC functionality - nothing better than being able to call in airstrikes for you friendly troops

 

Maybe someday we'll be able to have a full combat simulator.  

I can imagine it now.
You start at Incirlik, get into a Chinook, armed up ready to go, you look out the window for the 40 minute journey taking in the beauty that is the Syria map, you fly over cities, mountains and lakes.. After 40 minutes you reach your destination Hatay, You touch down, ready to walk over and jump into a Humvee to move into an area where insurgents have taken over a small village.
After the 30 minute drive, you approach the border of Turkey and Syria.. Where you see smoke billowing into the air, you jump out the Humvee, ready your weapon, and prepare to snipe targets from afar.
You see an APC- As you casually sit, waiting for the shot, you sit still for 10 minutes...

Then.. 'BOOM!' Someone else in an FA18 has launched JSOWS from 30 miles away, and has done the work for you.

You then walk back to the Humvee, as you need to get back to base..
After the 30 minute drive to Hatay.. And another 40 minutes in the Chinook, You land back at base..

'DCS: FPS Simulator'..

On a serious note, I absolutely love Combined Arms. But no one else does in Multiplayer, and there are no missions for it.
Its not even a 'unit' on the userfiles page..
Why not try to make a few missions for what we have, and see if you can garner some interest into it?
It works really well in Multiplayer on the right missions, which is a shame.

But in the wrong missions, its awful.
And the AI, really is pants. Especially with the current damage model.

I was destroyed by a Humvee TOW from miles out, and i was in a T-90 that couldnt drive through an orchard..
The Humvee just watched me (saw him turn and aim for 5 minutes), as my AI tank just drove around and around in a circle.

[Silver_Dragon]

ED talked some time ago with can build a FPS only if some of Military clients has interest on them.

 

On other part, a 3rd party with a project can intent make them, similarly as actually has some examples of 3rd parties to improve some side of DCS as IADS system team and Battlefield productios and your assets pack / improve ground vehicles on DCS

[upyr1]

I have mixed feelings on this, I do know though it would be good to see improved infantry modeling. 

[Mars Exulte]

The biggest problem with DCS as an FPS ''simulator'' is infantry in real life is tedious and boring and so very time consuming. Even in Arma, the closest thing to what your requesting, the environments are somewhat constricted and funnel activity... and evem then without very careful efforts, it STILL ends up being hours of boredom. DCS environments are much larger, much more freeform, and will be 100x more prone to this sort of thing.

 

That's the biggest hold up for vehicles, too. DCS is built around much more of a ''strategic scale'' environment. As mentioned above, it's an environment where a single plane literally has the firepower to decimate an entire column, from miles away without warning... that is not a great environment to play in.

 

  So what it boils down to is that if using vics/infantry you basically are forced to pare it down to a scale that virtually eliminates that aspect, which almost immediately leads to ''why bother?''. Why bother shoehorning DCS into a role it sucks in and would require extensive work to even attempt, when there are literally a ton of products better in virtually every way at it, designed for it from the ground up, without all this added overhead and complexity?

 

  Tldr : it's not as great an idea as it first sounds, and is definitely terribly impractical. As far as ''is it a reasonable expectation it will ever happen?'' It is a resounding ''no''. Yeah this is a wishlist, blah blah, but it's not gonna happen, all there is to it. It's just not a realistic expectation with the amount of work and drawbacks.

 

  Set aside the network issues from syncing all this up and the inflated player numbers for it to be reasonable.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[Silver_Dragon]

DCS has a air, land Sea simulator, I don't see the problem to ED making vehiclesFPS or more.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Rick50]

Is it possible to make drivable/fightable units as a mod for Combined Arms?

[Mars Exulte]

30 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

Is it possible to make drivable/fightable units as a mod for Combined Arms?

 

  Looks like it. Go check the mod subforum, there's quite a bit of stuff in there saying ''CA Ready'' (which presumably means it's drivable)

[Rick50]

 

Cool thanks! Will do

[upyr1]

It could be nice to have playable infantry in combined arms the main problem I see as others have pointed out is the length of time for a mission. Good mission design could fix that, though I guess with good IA you could take control of the grunts while the vehicles go off and do their thing.

[Harker]

DCS should stick to aircraft. The scale of the game and the map level of detail only works there. Small missions with vehicles in CA are already possible, to the extent that it makes sense in DCS and you can already control "strategic" vehicles, such as ships. Implementing an actual FPS element would bring unneeded complication to the game code, which is already more complex than it should be. The game already doesn't run great on pretty much every pc out there, imagine if you add a whole new dimension to it.

[Rick50]

 

I'm sorta mixed on this one. On the one hand, it's a cool idea to bring about the true full virtual battlefield... but on the other hand, yea, as infantry FPS I too see it's not likely much use. The tanks and armor, well that's already in CA and seems to be ok... but hobbling around on foot just doesn't seem to make much sense with maps designed for "fast air"...   

 

What I mean is, while the maps look great from the air, even 

edit:

from helicopters down low it looks awesome on the Syria map, but by the time you get to ground armor, it starts to look kinda weak. Not much detail on many of the maps (though I suspect tanks on Syria map would be pretty decent).  But infantry? At 5 km/h ? Yea, looking pretty sparse now. And you're going nowhere fast. Or slow, or at all! LOL!!

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Rick50

[Silver_Dragon]

New infantry 3D models on progress by ED

 

[Callsign112]

Aside from the fact that this is supposed to be a digital combat simulator, being able to combine air, ground, and sea power on the same battle field makes sense. If you think the scenario of how a farm boy from Cottonwood falls Kansas gets recruited, and after months of preparation finds himself landing on a beach in France might not make good mission material for a digital combat simulator because of the shear scale and months of boredom involved, I would say your probably right. But not because air, land, and sea power can't be combined successfully on the same battle field in a computer simulation.

 

It all comes down to what you want to do with the simulator. If the mission has you moving an armored detachment 50km behind enemy lines in ARMA3, on top of staying alert, you still have to drive the 50km. And if after driving the 50km, you run into an anti-tank company like in PostScriptum, you can expect the action to pick up a bit. And if the armored detachment that is now pinned down radios in for air support from its airbase 70km away, like in DCS, the action starts to get a lot more interesting for pilots and tankers alike. The point is, you should be able to decide what the mission will be in a digital combat simulator. If you want to simulate air-to-air, you should be able to do that. If you want to make a tank battle, you should be able to do that. If you want to create an all out combined arms mission, that should also be an option.

 

My personal preference after playing around with a number of military computer games would be to keep the focus on vehicles, and add infantry as AI only. Real players in planes and tanks fighting each other while interacting with AI infantry capable of attacking/defending their positions would create the most immersive and enjoyable experience. For example, Battlefield game play is centered around you as a foot soldier, and yet my most memorable experiences are from the cockpit of a plane, or the cupola of a tank. Getting deleted by a foot soldier while I am in a tank is fine. But repeatedly getting deleted by a plane, or a tank as a foot soldier is enough to make me close the game. I think it has to do with the advantage the guy in the tank/plane has while I'm playing recon/medic. Keeping the focus for real players on vehicles would help to balance that a bit better, and adding a very capable AI infantry would make it equally as exciting.  You could still have AI planes and tanks for the real players to deal with, but adding an AI infantry unit capable of attacking/defending your position would help to simulate the chaotic intensity of battle for both players on the ground and in the air. I get why aviation receives the lions share of ED's development time, but I would really like to see them develop ground/sea assets more completely. Ground assets especially are currently the most lacking in DCS world.

[Tank50us]

While I certainly would like to see proper infantry simulation in DCS, I would agree that for it to be fun, a mission designer would have to constrict him/her self to keep the action focused into a specific area where the grunts are at play. That said, one area where I'd really like to see the ground component be improved is with downed pilots. I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to capture or rescue a downed airmen, but that's currently something we can't do in DCS, and would have to switch over to ArmA to simulate.

 

One thing I'd personally like to see ED do is an actual ground combat simulator that a separate game, but able to 'talk' to DCS, basically a 'one server, two games' approach similar to what CCP Games did with EVE Online. Like, if I have a training server up and running, in DCS I can fly over a decently detailed training camp on my way to a bombing range. At the camp, I can see some 'alright' LOD troops running around, climbing, shooting, just training. Their animations are good enough to suggest what they're doing, but not super detailed. Meanwhile, the guys on the ground see a much more detailed training camp, with all the bells and whistles that I can't see from 40,000ft through a Lightning Pod. They're using weapons that aren't seen in DCS but are still decently represented (like you'd see a soldier carrying an M16 in DCS, but in the ground sim, he'd be using an M16A4). Where things are 100% represented however, is with the vehicles. On the ground, we'd get something with much more detail, but in the air, we'd see less of the micro details (like the dings, dents, etc). An example of that would be in the air, we'd see an M1A2SEP2. On the ground, we'd see that MREs that the ground pounders threw in the turret bustle, the extra ammo cans for their .50cal, the pin-up poster taped to the back of the Commanders Hatch, and so on. For them, they wouldn't see the high detailed models of our own aircraft, unless it was one that was parked at an airfield they were actively trying to take over. For them, that Su25T is just, an Su25T, but for us DCS pilots, it's our personal Su25T with a Russian Memphis Belle painted on the side.

 

What do you guys think of that?

[Callsign112]

On 5/22/2021 at 12:20 AM, Tank50us said:

While I certainly would like to see proper infantry simulation in DCS, I would agree that for it to be fun, a mission designer would have to constrict him/her self to keep the action focused into a specific area where the grunts are at play. That said, one area where I'd really like to see the ground component be improved is with downed pilots. I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to capture or rescue a downed airmen, but that's currently something we can't do in DCS, and would have to switch over to ArmA to simulate.

 

One thing I'd personally like to see ED do is an actual ground combat simulator that a separate game, but able to 'talk' to DCS, basically a 'one server, two games' approach similar to what CCP Games did with EVE Online. Like, if I have a training server up and running, in DCS I can fly over a decently detailed training camp on my way to a bombing range. At the camp, I can see some 'alright' LOD troops running around, climbing, shooting, just training. Their animations are good enough to suggest what they're doing, but not super detailed. Meanwhile, the guys on the ground see a much more detailed training camp, with all the bells and whistles that I can't see from 40,000ft through a Lightning Pod. They're using weapons that aren't seen in DCS but are still decently represented (like you'd see a soldier carrying an M16 in DCS, but in the ground sim, he'd be using an M16A4). Where things are 100% represented however, is with the vehicles. On the ground, we'd get something with much more detail, but in the air, we'd see less of the micro details (like the dings, dents, etc). An example of that would be in the air, we'd see an M1A2SEP2. On the ground, we'd see that MREs that the ground pounders threw in the turret bustle, the extra ammo cans for their .50cal, the pin-up poster taped to the back of the Commanders Hatch, and so on. For them, they wouldn't see the high detailed models of our own aircraft, unless it was one that was parked at an airfield they were actively trying to take over. For them, that Su25T is just, an Su25T, but for us DCS pilots, it's our personal Su25T with a Russian Memphis Belle painted on the side.

 

What do you guys think of that?

You raise really good points. In the video someone linked in the other "Wish List" thread we both commented in, it was stated that playable ground troops are not planned. But the same person being interviewed in that video also said "not until our military partners ask for a Battle Field 3 type FPS". So I guess its not entirely off the table.

 

But IMO, having real players in high fidelity vehicles (planes/jets/tanks...) interacting with each other on a battle field populated with very capable AI units/infantry to achieve the desired level of action would provide the best experience.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, the infantry/ground force component of DCS World is in serious need of some love, and it seems obvious to me that a fix to this situation will come via the tech packs. IMO, I think part of the problem is ED has not done a very good job at demonstrating the value and importance of its tech packs, and that has caused some people to focus more on whats missing, instead of what they will become.

 

If DCS World is a sandbox, then the tech packs/maps are the tools you use to create with. I haven't even started discovering the jet age in DCS yet, but I have spent hours enjoying the Super Carrier while creating naval battles with jet fighter assets. And now that I have used them, opening the mission editor without the WWII Assets pack and Combined Arms installed would be a very disappointing experience for me. 

[SparxOne]

On 5/21/2021 at 8:28 PM, Callsign112 said:

My personal preference after playing around with a number of military computer games would be to keep the focus on vehicles, and add infantry as AI only. Real players in planes and tanks fighting each other while interacting with AI infantry capable of attacking/defending their positions would create the most immersive and enjoyable experience. For example, Battlefield game play is centered around you as a foot soldier, and yet my most memorable experiences are from the cockpit of a plane, or the cupola of a tank. Getting deleted by a foot soldier while I am in a tank is fine. But repeatedly getting deleted by a plane, or a tank as a foot soldier is enough to make me close the game. I think it has to do with the advantage the guy in the tank/plane has while I'm playing recon/medic. Keeping the focus for real players on vehicles would help to balance that a bit better, and adding a very capable AI infantry would make it equally as exciting.  You could still have AI planes and tanks for the real players to deal with, but adding an AI infantry unit capable of attacking/defending your position would help to simulate the chaotic intensity of battle for both players on the ground and in the air. I get why aviation receives the lions share of ED's development time, but I would really like to see them develop ground/sea assets more completely. Ground assets especially are currently the most lacking in DCS world.

 

6 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But IMO, having real players in high fidelity vehicles (planes/jets/tanks...) interacting with each other on a battle field populated with very capable AI units/infantry to achieve the desired level of action would provide the best experience.

 

No need to say more, THIS is exactly what i wish would be done as to stay realistic in terms of development ! The whole Infantry FPS is a very far away dream, while the vehicle (Planes, Helis, Ground vehicles, Ships) is already a thing with Combined Arms, just needs refinement.

[Callsign112]

17 hours ago, SparxOne said:

 

 

No need to say more, THIS is exactly what i wish would be done as to stay realistic in terms of development ! The whole Infantry FPS is a very far away dream, while the vehicle (Planes, Helis, Ground vehicles, Ships) is already a thing with Combined Arms, just needs refinement.

Couldn't agree more. After playing around with a number of different platforms/games, I have to say ED has hit the nail-on-the-head so to speak in terms of the concept behind Combined Arms and what it offers to DCS World users.

 

In terms of refinement, it unfortunately doesn't see the same development pace as the F18 for example, but it is progressing. When I first got CA, I had trouble getting vehicles to follow On-road way points. Now vehicles drive from one side of the Normandy/Channel map to the other switching between on and off road way points at various speeds, while passing large infantry formations following their own way points on the same section of road.

 

Combined Arms was included in 2 of the last 4 open beta patches, with a pretty decent update on April 14. But given how significantly CA feeds into the DCS World experience, I think it deserves a lot more attention then it currently receives. 

[zaelu]

What is needed is just first steps.
For example someone to build a "module" for a ejected pilot. How hard it is to have a EFM for that? For someone that knows one or two things about the subject.
There is no avionic to model. No engine. No multiple aerodinamic surfaces.
Then... change the chute... make it a bit controllable or even one for aerobatics.
Then make this "module" spawn via script in the place or any chute that is abandoned by the pilot (it can be done by a command by that player or automatic)
Then you can get rescued
Then you can add a gun... and so on.

Edit. Basically this sums it up. it needs to be done completely and a bit better. Is it that hard? 

https://youtu.be/1MyPHI_i5cs

Edited May 24, 2021 by zaelu

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, zaelu said:

What is needed is just first steps.

For example someone to build a "module" for a ejected pilot. How hard it is to have a EFM for that? 
[...]
Edit. Basically this sums it up. it needs to be done completely and a bit better. Is it that hard? 

 

Why is it 'someone' [else] who should do something you want?

 

My motto: If it's easy, I can do it. 

 

And if you can't do it? Then, yes, it is that hard. 

 

[Callsign112]

19 hours ago, zaelu said:

What is needed is just first steps.
For example someone to build a "module" for a ejected pilot. How hard it is to have a EFM for that? For someone that knows one or two things about the subject.
There is no avionic to model. No engine. No multiple aerodinamic surfaces.
Then... change the chute... make it a bit controllable or even one for aerobatics.
Then make this "module" spawn via script in the place or any chute that is abandoned by the pilot (it can be done by a command by that player or automatic)
Then you can get rescued
Then you can add a gun... and so on.

Edit. Basically this sums it up. it needs to be done completely and a bit better. Is it that hard? 

https://youtu.be/1MyPHI_i5cs

 

Using the video you linked, they could probably model the pilot so that he is able to get in and out/sit down in a rescue plane/helicopter easy enough. But to change the chute and add the ability for the pilot to fight on the ground would only add more and more work, and then it comes down to what other work needs to be done, and how is this prioritized?

 

The question I have is what happens to your pilot stats when you bail out compared to when you make a perfect landing? Does it affect your pilots career at all? If it does, then you might have an argument for the whole pilot rescue thing, but I'm not sure about some of the other requests.

[SharpeXB]

The level of detail in DCS just isn’t suitable for a First Person Shooter type game. That should be obvious. Air Combat simulation requires very large maps that can’t have the level of detail which makes first person shooter or infantry games appealing. Even Combined Arms is a bit out of scope in IMO

Edited May 25, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The level of detail in DCS just isn’t suitable for a First Person Shooter type game. That should be obvious. Air Combat simulation requires very large maps that can’t have the level of detail which makes first person shooter or infantry games appealing. Even Combined Arms is a bit out of scope in IMO

 

I disagree, CA has been a thing in DCS World for quite some time. I get how you might be here to just fly planes/jets. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am here to fly/drive/sail in a digital combat simulator. I know there are a lot of considerations, but maybe in addition to future updates to the core engine, ED might have to consider raising the minimum system requirements at some point. Currently the suggested ram is 8GB (16 for heavy missions), but maybe 16GB should be the minimum if further core performance improvements aren't possible.

 

Here is a video I did using CA on the Normandy map. The biggest problem in terms of viewing quality are the sounds (which I tried to augment), and visual effects of explosions, both of which are being looked at for improvements.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

27 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I disagree, CA has been a thing in DCS World for quite some time. I get how you might be here to just fly planes/jets. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am here to fly/drive/sail in a digital combat simulator. I know there are a lot of considerations, but maybe in addition to future updates to the core engine, ED might have to consider raising the minimum system requirements at some point. Currently the suggested ram is 8GB (16 for heavy missions), but maybe 16GB should be the minimum if further core performance improvements aren't possible.

 

Here is a video I did using CA on the Normandy map. The biggest problem in terms of viewing quality are the sounds (which I tried to augment), and visual effects of explosions, both of which are being looked at for improvements.

 

 

Yeah that’s really nice for an RTS game or to be seen from the air in flight. Buts it’s really not up to what any FPS game offers. And the higher level of detail and animations, damage models etc I fear just isn’t compatible with a flight sim, which is what DCS mostly is. 

[Callsign112]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah that’s really nice for an RTS game or to be seen from the air in flight. Buts it’s really not up to what any FPS game offers. And the higher level of detail and animations, damage models etc I fear just isn’t compatible with a flight sim, which is what DCS mostly is. 

I am assuming by RTS, you mean real-time-shooter. Currently, DCS uses AI infantry only, and I wouldn't argue that they change that. If you read this thread, you will see that I am hoping for an improved AI, not a RTS. The focus should remain on the vehicles (planes/jets/tank...ect) Maps like Normandy and the Channel were made to be driven on, not just flown over. I love the aircraft in DCS World, but it is so much more than just a flight simulator.