would you be interested in combined Arms II which involved a major overhaul of the ground units and AI in DCS core and CA

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, Wdigman said:

I don't feel like you can command any large armor movements efficiently given the current interface. How many times do I discover that a group of assets is under attack by chance no notification that a group is under fire, or direction of where the fire is coming from.  The AI has no effective defensive tactics. Like popping smoke when an enemy is shooting at you? How do I take command of naval assets, and set up formations, sub hunting, etc?

 

I feel that a good command interface for DCS would be something like HARPOON. However since that game is decades old the potential to make DCS way better is a reality. They have inventories for warehouses and airfields! DCS has the potential to simulate strategic and logistical elements of the battlefield as well as front line elements. Yet another thread mentioned the implementation of ELINT and EW in DCS. Eagle could make something that is a learning asset at West Point.

 

Great post with a lot of insight. Thanks!

 

Now imagine if the issues highlighted in the bold text were updated/fixed/improved on.

 

Take any module ever released in DCS. Weren't they all polished that way? Sure some modules may have been released in a more finished state then others, but all the same, I haven't seen a module that didn't need fixing of some sort after it was released.

 

Part of the perception problem here is that CA development has a lot lower priority obviously when compared to something like the F-18, which was released in a much higher state of readiness and sees constant updates. But people misinterpret this fact as a fault of the CA module itself. If we are thinking in terms of a digital combat simulator, then CA fits perfectly if it could be developed to its full potential.

[FlankerKiller]

Obviously everyone is going to have there own pet ideas about how this should be done. But with the focus shifting back to helicopter warfare it really really needs to be done. Much better AI is almost a must if the Hind, the Kamove, and the Apache are going to be truly engaging. And having a living person drive a decently well modelled combat vehicle would be really interesting. Also it would pave the way for more modules. I for one would play the hell out of a M-1A sim, or a Sherman Firfly, or a Tiger, or an M60, especially an M60, or a Bradley, and the list gose on. Especially if i had a decent Ai to fight with. So yes, i would be all in. 

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

Let me be frank - CA in its current form is a stain on ED's reputation: it looks like the summer project of a sullen intern; haphazardly slapped together with counter-intuitive integration, shoddy (really bad) physics, cheap visuals, inaccessible functionality and no VR support. It should never have progressed beyond internal testing, and shame on the project managers who green-lit production.

 

That being said, I'd be open (and prepared to pay) for 'real' DCS-level ground vehicle modules, provided ED adds a good 'ground engine'. This means that instead of CA's approach to let us access some vehicles in a crummy way, I want a single vehicle, hi-quality approach: I'm prepared to pay per-vehicle (e.g. a Hummer, a Leo II, or Marder) -- provided their physics engine and sim fidelity is on par with that of air frames (this requires a new, correct implementation of ground physics, which currently is rudimentary at best).

 

So, no, I don't want a CA II. I want high-quality ground modules on par with (perhaps FC3-level fidelity) airframes. And I have my wallet right here to back this up  

 

Anything less - let it go. 

 

I think you have make good points regarding DCS-level ground vehicle modules. But there has been news floating around that ground vehicles are going to get an update. Now I don't know what that means, or entails but what if an update does mean that vehicles get close to what you are suggesting? I think in essence we are all sort talking the same thing. It has to be done right to attract people in.

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, sirrah said:

• There are other (or is one other) "simulator" out there that does a better job on simulating a ground war ...
• In line with my previous point, most people now come to DCS for a unique flight simulation experience ...
• Current DCS platform/world is not really fit for driving vehicles. ...

 

 

No need to run for cover because they are all good points. I would add though that

 

To point 1, competition is the best reason to enter any market.

 

To point 2, the idea here is not to change that. The idea is to add to it.

 

To point 3, too bad I am traveling at the moment, otherwise I would have enjoyed giving you one of the most interesting ground tours of the DCS Channel map.

 

But the linked video below does a good job at demonstrating the driving, shooting part of DCS World ground vehicles. Remember though that this video is about 4 years old, and DCS World along with its maps and other components have seen considerable updates since then.

 

 

[Callsign112]

30 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

Obviously everyone is going to have there own pet ideas about how this should be done. But with the focus shifting back to helicopter warfare it really really needs to be done. Much better AI is almost a must if the Hind, the Kamove, and the Apache are going to be truly engaging. And having a living person drive a decently well modelled combat vehicle would be really interesting. Also it would pave the way for more modules. I for one would play the hell out of a M-1A sim, or a Sherman Firfly, or a Tiger, or an M60, especially an M60, or a Bradley, and the list gose on. Especially if i had a decent Ai to fight with. So yes, i would be all in. 

I couldn't agree more. Just looking at all the interest being developed in rotary-winged aircraft at the moment tells me that there is likely a huge pent up demand for more ground war elements. I don't want to go down the road of "should this be a first person shooter", because I really thing the way to go is to keep the focus on real players in vehicles/planes/jets/helicopters, and add a very capable AI infantry to populate the action as needed. But yeah, +1 on adding armor to the pilots list of options!

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I think one of the best ways to improve CA, particularly with the infantry, is to make it when you put down a unit, it's actually putting down a squad sized element that is based around the squad leader. Each member of the unit is effectively 'tethered' to the SL, and will move where they do. To avoid issues, each member of the unit also has its own ability to path-find, but, as the squad leader is where the icon would be, you wouldn't have any direct control over the individual units within the squad.

 

The advantage to this is that you can more accurately represent infantry units both in terms of looks and function. For example, if you have a US rifle squad, you'll have about 6 guys with M16s, 2 with LMGs, and the Squad leader with an M4. If you give them an order to attack something that's on the edge of their range, they'll start shooting at it, but will automatically close in to get a more optimal range, all the while moving and shooting as they approach (laying down covering fire basically).

 

An Anti-Air team on the other hand would consist of the SL, two rifleman, and two MANPADS, an Anti-Tank team would be the same size, but with ATGM Launchers instead of MANPADS, and so on.

 

Done right, this could also have a level of customization added. You could plunk down the SL, and in the correct tab for the unit (maybe the loadout tab?) you can select how many troops are in his squad, what each member has for a weapon, and other options.

 

Just my two cents.

A lot of cool and interesting ideas here.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Yes, exactly how I envision what CA should be about. Combined Arms. Not tank simulator. Those could be standalone modules for all I care.
But it can be handy to jump in a scout vehicle once in a while.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I'd be fine if we kept the low fi tanks, I just want the VR fixed and improved the strategic aspect. Since the point to Combined Arms, is to command an armored battalion. The ability to drive a tank is just a bonus 

Edited August 3, 2021 by upyr1

[Callsign112]

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'd be fine if we kept the low fi tanks, I just want the VR fixed and improved the strategic aspect. Since the point to Combined Arms, is to command an armored battalion. The ability to drive a tank is just a bonus 

 

I hear you, because any and all improvements are much needed and welcome. But I would argue that the point to CA is much much more...

 

DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy.

 

Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

 

DCS: Combined Arms supports both single player and multiplayer gameplay. When in multiplayer, different players can take on different roles such as artillery commanders, tank commanders, pilots, JTACS, etc. DCS: Combined Arms allows you full control of the battle. All roles can be changed dynamically during the battle.

 

 

The impression I get from reading the various threads on this topic is that most people don't really get the CA module. Its like the game they didn't even realize they have. It would be interesting to see how many of the people that are really negative on it actually really gave it a try and put it through its paces. I am not saying that they haven't, or that the complaints aren't valid, because there are certainly issues, and lots of them. But like anything else, put in the right light and it will shine. Take the two free planes for example. I know for a fact that a lot of people use the SU-25T, but have a look at the sub-forums for those planes, not a single thread about using them with CA.

 

I would go as far to suggest that anyone new, or just getting starting in DCS and not sure if your a war bird, or a jet guy/gal, download DCS and learn how to handle the two free planes really well along with at least the basics in the mission editor. Then during the next sale, pick up Combined Arms and add its features/capabilities to what you previously learned. There is enough there to keep you interested and amused I'm sure for a long time. The other thing about CA, or maybe more DCS World in general, having even just a basic understanding of the mission editor adds to what you can do with CA. 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Great post with a lot of insight. Thanks!

 

Now imagine if the issues highlighted in the bold text were updated/fixed/improved on.

 

Take any module ever released in DCS. Weren't they all polished that way? Sure some modules may have been released in a more finished state then others, but all the same, I haven't seen a module that didn't need fixing of some sort after it was released.

 

Part of the perception problem here is that CA development has a lot lower priority obviously when compared to something like the F-18, which was released in a much higher state of readiness and sees constant updates. But people misinterpret this fact as a fault of the CA module itself. If we are thinking in terms of a digital combat simulator, then CA fits perfectly if it could be developed to its full potential.

As I said before, Combined Arms is the Skeleton in the pool meme. The problem with Combined Arms is the fact Eagle doesn't give it the attention it needs. Combined Arms in a lot of ways reminds me of the old Spectrum HoloByte Tank game. As it is trying to be both a strategy game and a tank simulator. I think ost of us can agree they need to focus on the stratagy element. Though I like the fact we are able to drive low-fi tanks. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by upyr1

[Callsign112]

5 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

As I said before, Combined Arms is the Skeleton in the pool meme. The problem with Combined Arms is the fact Eagle doesn't give it the attention it needs. Combined Arms in a lot of ways reminds me of the old Spectrum HoloByte Tank game. As it is trying to be both a strategy game and a tank simulator.

While we both seem to want to see improvements to ground/naval aspects in what ever form it would take, your quote above is really just pointing out what CA currently is with all its problems. My point to the post you were quoting was more directed at what CA could become. But I agree, ED does not give CA the attention it needs to get beyond all the warranted criticism.

[MAXsenna]

I'd be fine if we kept the low fi tanks, I just want the VR fixed and improved the strategic aspect. Since the point to Combined Arms, is to command an armored battalion. The ability to drive a tank is just a bonus 

Fair point!
Yeah, the strategic element is most important, and can possibly draw in new users.
I get that VR is the future, so that needs to be done.
And of course don't want the ability to drive vehicles taken away. But full fledged study tanks, I guess we all agree that those should be seperate modules, even though Sirrah is kind of right. (I actually won a copy of the first release at simhq, of what sim he's referring to).

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

While we both seem to want to see improvements to ground/naval aspects in what ever form it would take, your quote above is really just pointing out what CA currently is with all its problems. My point to the post you were quoting was more directed at what CA could become. But I agree, ED does not give CA the attention it needs to get beyond all the warranted criticism.

Looking at the poll results so far most of the people voting want Combined Arms II

[Eugel]

I voted for no.

I really would love a proper combined arms, but they should finish the first one before thinking about a combined arms II.

The current one feels very much like an early access release. So unless there will be some major updates to that, I don´t think I would invest in a combined arms II.

[upyr1]

18 minutes ago, Eugel said:

I voted for no.

I really would love a proper combined arms, but they should finish the first one before thinking about a combined arms II.

The current one feels very much like an early access release. So unless there will be some major updates to that, I don´t think I would invest in a combined arms II.

Looking at the age of CA, Combined Arms might be the only way to get Eagle to pay attention to it. If they did make CA II I don't expect it to be completely new code

[Harker]

Looking at the age of CA, Combined Arms might be the only way to get Eagle to pay attention to it. If they did make CA II I don't expect it to be completely new code

Paying for a new iteration of CA when the original one isn't working correctly, is a bad idea. What message does that give?

Personally, I'd say that it's better if CA stops existing in its current form and instead is developed as a 2D or 3D RTS interface; it's the best long term solution and one that adds a lot of depth to the game. DCS cannot be an everything simulator and it shouldn't attempt to be. Trying to fit high fidelity aircraft, naval assets, ground vehicles, infantry and their respective high fidelity environments into the same software is impossible, within today's limitations.

[Callsign112]

14 minutes ago, Harker said:

Paying for a new iteration of CA when the original one isn't working correctly, is a bad idea. What message does that give?

Personally, I'd say that it's better if CA stops existing in its current form and instead is developed as a 2D or 3D RTS interface; it's the best long term solution and one that adds a lot of depth to the game. DCS cannot be an everything simulator and it shouldn't attempt to be. Trying to fit high fidelity aircraft, naval assets, ground vehicles, infantry and their respective high fidelity environments into the same software is impossible, within today's limitations.

Or if you are concerned about images.... you could always do the obvious and fix what isn't working correctly.

 

The aspirations of ED as stated on its website is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

The meaning of the two texts in bold seem to be in complete opposition to each other.

[Lace]

14 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

There is enough there to keep you interested and amused I'm sure for a long time. The other thing about CA, or maybe more DCS World in general, having even just a basic understanding of the mission editor adds to what you can do with CA. 

 

I've had CA for so long now, I'm not sure which features are CA, and which are DCS core.

[Harker]

Or if you are concerned about images.... you could always do the obvious and fix what isn't working correctly.
 
The aspirations of ED as stated on its website is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.
 
The meaning of the two texts in bold seem to be in complete opposition to each other.

To your first point, it's exactly what I'm saying. The current iteration of CA should be ironed out by ED well before anything else along these lines is even considered.

As for the aspirations of ED, they're just that for now, aspirations. DCS might become that in the years to come, but in the near future, unless we experience a technological leap in processing power, memory management and associated manufacturing, there are limits to how many things you can run well, in high fidelity, under the same hood. If DCS gets more complicated in the short term, it should be in terms of sensor and electromagnetics simulation.

BTW, the "DCS Ground Crew" doesn't mean I'm associated with ED in any way, it's just a volunteering thing in the forums, nothing more. Just clarifying.

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Lace said:

 

I've had CA for so long now, I'm not sure which features are CA, and which are DCS core.

Yeah there is some overlap in terms of where one module ends and another begins. Take the WWII Assets pack for example, there are the assets, then there are the AI behavior of the assets, and then there is a feature with some of the assets that allows you to drive them. But in terms of CA, basically this is what it allows you to as far as I understand it:

 

"Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy. "

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

To your first point, it's exactly what I'm saying. The current iteration of CA should be ironed out by ED well before anything else along these lines is even considered.

As for the aspirations of ED, they're just that for now, aspirations. DCS might become that in the years to come, but in the near future, unless we experience a technological leap in processing power, memory management and associated manufacturing, there are limits to how many things you can run well, in high fidelity, under the same hood. If DCS gets more complicated in the short term, it should be in terms of sensor and electromagnetics simulation.

BTW, the "DCS Ground Crew" doesn't mean I'm associated with ED in any way, it's just a volunteering thing in the forums, nothing more. Just clarifying.

@Harker, I'm not aiming for any nerves, so if I hit one please excuse. I get the first point. There have been a number of people that have pointed this out, and I don't think anyone can argue with that logic. If you go back in the discussion between the OP and myself, you will see that we actually discuss the aspect of making something new versus just fixing what is already there. My personal view is that the current CA should be developed further to get out all the wrinkles as you put it. I think the OP's suggestion was focused more on the naval ship part of the game, but it is hard to talk about a Fleet OP's concept without bringing CA into it. So hear we are.

 

In terms of what ED will, or won't do, or what they want to do versus what ends up getting done falls on ED. So I am not trying to suggest that because someone starts a wish list discussion, ED is taking notes and putting it on the to-do list, or anything like that. Every thread on the wish list sub forum is just that, a wish. Sometimes the community might get luck and wish for the same thing that just happens to be planned into the road map, but otherwise it is just a wish. In terms of the CA module itself, well it already exists and a number of people including myself have bought into it, enjoy it, and would like to see it get more attention. Similar to any other module really. Anyone that has bought the A8, or the F-16 will likely want to see them developed to their full potential, or have any existing issues fixed/updated. So that was the reason I made the bold text for comparison, you suggested that the product I would like to see improved stop existing, and the reason you gave is because DCSW can't and shouldn't try to simulate everything. I think it is fair to say that ED's own mission statement disagrees with that sentiment, and DCSW already does simulate air/land/sea environments.

 

I never suggested that you are associated with ED. But even a volunteer is representative of the thing he/she has volunteered for.

 

I am glad you have expressed you views here. I think these discussions are important for both the community and ED.

[Harker]

@Harker, I'm not aiming for any nerves, so if I hit one please excuse. I get the first point. There have been a number of people that have pointed this out, and I don't think anyone can argue with that logic. If you go back in the discussion between the OP and myself, you will see that we actually discuss the aspect of making something new versus just fixing what is already there. My personal view is that the current CA should be developed further to get out all the wrinkles as you put it. I think the OP's suggestion was focused more on the naval ship part of the game, but it is hard to talk about a Fleet OP's concept without bringing CA into it. So hear we are.
 
In terms of what ED will, or won't do, or what they want to do versus what ends up getting done falls on ED. So I am not trying to suggest that because someone starts a wish list discussion, ED is taking notes and putting it on the to-do list, or anything like that. Every thread on the wish list sub forum is just that, a wish. Sometimes the community might get luck and wish for the same thing that just happens to be planned into the road map, but otherwise it is just a wish. In terms of the CA module itself, well it already exists and a number of people including myself have bought into it, enjoy it, and would like to see it get more attention. Similar to any other module really. Anyone that has bought the A8, or the F-16 will likely want to see them developed to their full potential, or have any existing issues fixed/updated. So that was the reason I made the bold text for comparison, you suggested that the product I would like to see improved stop existing, and the reason you gave is because DCSW can't and shouldn't try to simulate everything. I think it is fair to say that ED's own mission statement disagrees with that sentiment, and DCSW already does simulate air/land/sea environments.
 
I never suggested that you are associated with ED. But even a volunteer is representative of the thing he/she has volunteered for.
 
I am glad you have expressed you views here. I think these discussions are important for both the community and ED.

No worries, no offense taken at all :) It's just that sometimes people assume stuff like that and I just wanted to be clear that I neither affect or have any insider knowledge of DCS's development.

What I was suggesting is that ED should put more effort into fixing and expanding the CA module, according to the product description. This is, after all, what people paid for. That should come before more features, IMO, as it'll keep the technical debt manageable. Unfortunately, new features mean new bugs etc, it's just the nature of the beast.

And as for my suggestion to move to an RTS-only implementation and for DCS to focus on flyable modules, this is just my opinion, as from what I've seen, making CA the experience more engaging will likely require a significant overhaul of how DCS works and especially how maps work. An RTS engine on the other hand is easier to manage and would likely offer a lot of content for CA players interested in the commander role. Some other posters made good suggestions on the topic. But of course then, it wouldn't be the product that people paid for...

I'm not saying that it's not doable, but I'm skeptical whether it *currently* is. If I think about it, one possible solution would be to have people in ground/naval vehicles see and exist in a more complex terrain, with a smaller rendered radius, that communicates in real time with the "aircraft" map, so things like unit positions etc are the same between the two. This could maybe be achieved using multiple LOD layers, but I'm reaching my knowledge limit with regards to game development now and I have no idea if something like that would be possible. Apart from that, it's a matter of developing the necessary APIs for high fidelity ground and naval assets and while that would be very nice, it would be a monumental task for ED to do so and at the same time manage the resulting technical issues.

Would I like to see DCS offer a simulation of anything that can be in a battlefield? Absolutely. I'm just afraid that trying to do everything will come to the detriment of the current part of DCS.

OTOH, ED is already developing an RTS engine for the dynamic campaign, so maybe an expansion of that could be integrated into CA, in order to add more value.

And of course, this is just a wishlist thread, I just wanted to chime in with my personal opinion, that's all.

[Callsign112]

@Harker, I think your suggestions are just as welcome as everyone else's. So thanks. In terms of what can be done, I think the answer to that question changes on almost a daily basis. Look at the new clouds update for example. We now have a much more immersive world with improved performance. And there are other efforts currently underway that should help to continue building on that. So what is doable today, will likely change by the time we arrive at tomorrow.

 

I'm not sure I completely agree with your view that making CA more engaging would require a significant overhaul of how DCS works. The entire Eco-system already works pretty much the way most have requested. I think the bigger issue revolves more around memory overhead and performance by adding more vehicle detail, AI logic...

 

But one thing that hasn't been discussed very much is how the OP to this thread would like to see ships modeled.

 

On the tank side for me at least, I would like to see accurate track/suspension modeled, an accurate representation of the view port for each station including a 360 degree view from the opened commanders hatch, and accurate armor/gun performance. A fully clickable interior would be nice, but not necessary. On the ship side, what I would want is a way to control movement instead of having to use the mission editor. But again what should be given a high priority are things like accuracy in ship armor vs missile damage, missile range, radar, communications... ect. So basically the normal ED/DCS World way of doing things, no big changes here either. 

 

But I would like to hear from the OP what his vision would be for the ship models?

[Lurker]

As long as it's not just a graphical upgrade and whatnot, and it actually brought a real tangible improvement to how ground units operate and work within DCS World (including for people who do not own the mod) then yes, absolutely. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Lurker

[Callsign112]

Yeah to give an example take the video I linked above, and add a more capable AI infantry that is attacking/defending me while I'm in a more detailed/accurate vehicle, with other players in more detailed/accurate tanks/helicopters/planes/jets also attacking/defending my position. Basically DCS World with more detailed/accurate vehicles and a more capable AI.

 

I think detailed models and better AI have been a long standing request from the community, and the driving focus of ED from the begining. So I am pretty sure they will get there eventually because I think that seems to be the goal.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Harker said:

Paying for a new iteration of CA when the original one isn't working correctly, is a bad idea. What message does that give?

Personally, I'd say that it's better if CA stops existing in its current form and instead is developed as a 2D or 3D RTS interface; it's the best long term solution and one that adds a lot of depth to the game. DCS cannot be an everything simulator and it shouldn't attempt to be. Trying to fit high fidelity aircraft, naval assets, ground vehicles, infantry and their respective high fidelity environments into the same software is impossible, within today's limitations.

As said before Eagle is trying to do just that. The reason for a new iteration of Combined Arms, is to basically let the community know it is getting overhauled. I think iti s safe to say that even those of us who like what CA in its current form is trying to do, would agree that it needs more RTS elements. If Eagle would so that to CA I'd be happy if not then we're back to CAII. Bottom like I would just like more updates and more attention paid to CA.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Harker said:

No worries, no offense taken at all It's just that sometimes people assume stuff like that and I just wanted to be clear that I neither affect or have any insider knowledge of DCS's development.

What I was suggesting is that ED should put more effort into fixing and expanding the CA module, according to the product description. This is, after all, what people paid for. That should come before more features, IMO, as it'll keep the technical debt manageable. Unfortunately, new features mean new bugs etc, it's just the nature of the beast.

And as for my suggestion to move to an RTS-only implementation and for DCS to focus on flyable modules, this is just my opinion, as from what I've seen, making CA the experience more engaging will likely require a significant overhaul of how DCS works and especially how maps work. An RTS engine on the other hand is easier to manage and would likely offer a lot of content for CA players interested in the commander role. Some other posters made good suggestions on the topic. But of course then, it wouldn't be the product that people paid for...

I'm not saying that it's not doable, but I'm skeptical whether it *currently* is. If I think about it, one possible solution would be to have people in ground/naval vehicles see and exist in a more complex terrain, with a smaller rendered radius, that communicates in real time with the "aircraft" map, so things like unit positions etc are the same between the two. This could maybe be achieved using multiple LOD layers, but I'm reaching my knowledge limit with regards to game development now and I have no idea if something like that would be possible. Apart from that, it's a matter of developing the necessary APIs for high fidelity ground and naval assets and while that would be very nice, it would be a monumental task for ED to do so and at the same time manage the resulting technical issues.

Would I like to see DCS offer a simulation of anything that can be in a battlefield? Absolutely. I'm just afraid that trying to do everything will come to the detriment of the current part of DCS.

OTOH, ED is already developing an RTS engine for the dynamic campaign, so maybe an expansion of that could be integrated into CA, in order to add more value.

And of course, this is just a wishlist thread, I just wanted to chime in with my personal opinion, that's all.

I would rather see Eagle overhaul Combined Arms instead of starting Combined Arms II and Fleet OPs. The only reason I am even entertaining CA II and Fleet Ops is the fact that Combined Arms is the most neglected module. Even VR is broken.