Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), Survival kits, and maybe Prisoner of War (If you have Combined Arms), and, most Importantly, Freely Walking around

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

As I can see, you have a monopoly on what someone can and does not, likes ...

When I say 'I really don't know' I really do mean that I do not know, and acknowledge that I'm stating an opinion. My apologies if that did not come across. I hope my later posts did make that point more clearly.

 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

In the community where I have flown quite intensively and sometimes still fly, successful missions - take off - RTB was / is an important element. If you could link CSAR missions with DCS missions in a way that would make the KIA / MIA / RTB pilot status dependent on their success, it would be great.

I have written such missions, and a more relaxed (un-enforced CSAR) version of this you can get here. Play the mission, see if you like it. When you are shot down (note: you must be alive and eject successfully for a CSAR to be generated), wait until the automatically generated CSAR mission (which has to be flown by another player) is successful (in its current version, you can re-slot immediately).

My friends' consensus was was as unanimously as disappointing: "it's more fun when you don't have to wait, and can re-slot". That's just a couple of opinions, I agree. And I hated the fact that they made me remove my ingenious slot-blocking code (which I'm still very proud of  ). But I won't argue when my play-testers tell me that my idea is rubbish. So try it, and tell me what you think. 

[Nodak]

Be better off asking for CSAR frag orders generations within the new dynamic campaign.  No reason an Apache couldn't be task to look for and pick up a missing SF trooper as part of their mission profile once in a while.   

[Mr_sukebe]

You do realise that CSAR already exists as an ad on mod?

Run a search and you'll find the download, it's very cool.  Once the script is running, if a player successfully ejects, a CSAR mission will be auto-generated, and available to choose within the F10 menu.  It works really well, even generating a homing beacon, location, smoke when you're near to the pilot etc.

The only thing that's missing is that it doesn't work over water, as currently a pilot will instantly drown.  If ED could update that such that the pilot would use a life-preserver and get into a small dinghy, we'd be cooking on gas.

[Razorjet XII]

It seems that everybody is talking about the less important features, such as CSAR and survival.  But can we all agree on the ability of getting in and out of the aircraft? In fact, if you have a Helicopter and Combined Arms, you could go to an interesting place, land, have a nice drive around, get back into your helicopter, start it up, and be on you way. You could also use it to inspect damage on aircraft without using F2 view (As the Ground crew does not). Anyways, I respect all opinions, and posts, It is nice to see all of this.

[Nahen]

Let's start with the fact that 99% of the CSAR missions in DCS are a lone UH-1H / Mi-8 helicopter flying and looking for pilots ...
CSAR is a powerful undertaking in combat conditions - airplanes securing the airspace, CAS support planes and finally helicopter / helicopters pulling the pilot out of the enemy area.

For me, the current CSAR is just a substitute. A decent CSAR would be if:
1 - For example, UH-1H with four crewman + 2-4 additional players, flies to the place marked by smoke by the PLAYER who catapulted, In this  area disembark additional players for secure the place of with downed pilot,
2 - A shot down pilot would be able to move freely and find a suitable and safe place to take him,
3 - Scripts would generate the movement of enemy AI ground units with the task of finding the downed pilot - hence the need to be able to move it and change the place of taking it to a safe one,
4 - The shot down pilot would have to conduct radio communication, mark the place of pickup with smoke, flare, place a mark on the ground, etc.
This is the absolute minimum. And on top of that, an organized operation with support for helicopter. If you fly cyclically in a group of players once or twice a week, different missions, then once in a while when the mission has to be interrupted or you can manage to carry it out relatively efficiently and quickly and someone will be shot down, some people would certainly be happy to take part in something like this.

But I do not believe that DCS will go in this type of direction ever, sooner we will see a new game that will connect it and make it available to us. 

 

Besides, the very approach and the possibility of getting into the helicopter after being shot down would be something nice, and not walking around a man that no one can see and who can not interact with the environment or even a rescue helicopter in any way ...

Such a situation - a plane shot downed over enemy units (tanks, APC, triple A batteries), the helicopter must fly there to pick up an AI man, and at this time the player walks around somewhere ... Maybe let the player, after catapulting, have the option to "generate" a "AI-man" where he deems it appropriate, and not in the middle of a river, forest or between enemy vehicles ... He can go to a safe place and then" generates "the figure" to be taken by the helicopter ... since he cannot wait and get into him...

Edited October 18, 2021 by Nahen

[Razorjet XII]

On 10/19/2021 at 4:56 AM, Nahen said:

Let's start with the fact that 99% of the CSAR missions in DCS are a lone UH-1H / Mi-8 helicopter flying and looking for pilots ...
CSAR is a powerful undertaking in combat conditions - airplanes securing the airspace, CAS support planes and finally helicopter / helicopters pulling the pilot out of the enemy area.

For me, the current CSAR is just a substitute. A decent CSAR would be if:
1 - For example, UH-1H with four crewman + 2-4 additional players, flies to the place marked by smoke by the PLAYER who catapulted, In this  area disembark additional players for secure the place of with downed pilot,
2 - A shot down pilot would be able to move freely and find a suitable and safe place to take him,
3 - Scripts would generate the movement of enemy AI ground units with the task of finding the downed pilot - hence the need to be able to move it and change the place of taking it to a safe one,
4 - The shot down pilot would have to conduct radio communication, mark the place of pickup with smoke, flare, place a mark on the ground, etc.
This is the absolute minimum. And on top of that, an organized operation with support for helicopter. If you fly cyclically in a group of players once or twice a week, different missions, then once in a while when the mission has to be interrupted or you can manage to carry it out relatively efficiently and quickly and someone will be shot down, some people would certainly be happy to take part in something like this.

But I do not believe that DCS will go in this type of direction ever, sooner we will see a new game that will connect it and make it available to us. 

 

Besides, the very approach and the possibility of getting into the helicopter after being shot down would be something nice, and not walking around a man that no one can see and who can not interact with the environment or even a rescue helicopter in any way ...

Such a situation - a plane shot downed over enemy units (tanks, APC, triple A batteries), the helicopter must fly there to pick up an AI man, and at this time the player walks around somewhere ... Maybe let the player, after catapulting, have the option to "generate" a "AI-man" where he deems it appropriate, and not in the middle of a river, forest or between enemy vehicles ... He can go to a safe place and then" generates "the figure" to be taken by the helicopter ... since he cannot wait and get into him...

 

Hmm yes, that is a good idea.

[Nomatic]

On 10/18/2021 at 1:56 PM, Nahen said:

Let's start with the fact that 99% of the CSAR missions in DCS are a lone UH-1H / Mi-8 helicopter flying and looking for pilots ...
CSAR is a powerful undertaking in combat conditions - airplanes securing the airspace, CAS support planes and finally helicopter / helicopters pulling the pilot out of the enemy area.

For me, the current CSAR is just a substitute. A decent CSAR would be if:
1 - For example, UH-1H with four crewman + 2-4 additional players, flies to the place marked by smoke by the PLAYER who catapulted, In this  area disembark additional players for secure the place of with downed pilot,
2 - A shot down pilot would be able to move freely and find a suitable and safe place to take him,
3 - Scripts would generate the movement of enemy AI ground units with the task of finding the downed pilot - hence the need to be able to move it and change the place of taking it to a safe one,
4 - The shot down pilot would have to conduct radio communication, mark the place of pickup with smoke, flare, place a mark on the ground, etc.
This is the absolute minimum. And on top of that, an organized operation with support for helicopter. If you fly cyclically in a group of players once or twice a week, different missions, then once in a while when the mission has to be interrupted or you can manage to carry it out relatively efficiently and quickly and someone will be shot down, some people would certainly be happy to take part in something like this.

But I do not believe that DCS will go in this type of direction ever, sooner we will see a new game that will connect it and make it available to us. 

 

Besides, the very approach and the possibility of getting into the helicopter after being shot down would be something nice, and not walking around a man that no one can see and who can not interact with the environment or even a rescue helicopter in any way ...

Such a situation - a plane shot downed over enemy units (tanks, APC, triple A batteries), the helicopter must fly there to pick up an AI man, and at this time the player walks around somewhere ... Maybe let the player, after catapulting, have the option to "generate" a "AI-man" where he deems it appropriate, and not in the middle of a river, forest or between enemy vehicles ... He can go to a safe place and then" generates "the figure" to be taken by the helicopter ... since he cannot wait and get into him...

 

Hell yes! That and a good GCI module… Talk about a hell of an online mission set and potential. I hope we’ll get this at some point, thats for sure. 

[Razorjet XII]

13 hours ago, RenegadeSkip said:

Hell yes! That and a good GCI module… Talk about a hell of an online mission set and potential. I hope we’ll get this at some point, thats for sure. 

CSAR?

[Razorjet XII]

Welp, this thread is dead.

[Callsign112]

On 10/9/2021 at 9:56 AM, cfrag said:

...infantry and airframes don't mix well because of the speed differential involved. On foot you can cross perhaps 10 km in one hour. A plane crosses that distance in a few seconds during take-off. So if you MP with your friends with you on foot, and them in the air, you wont's interact much... Planes and Boots don't mix well. It's already really difficult to create MP missions that mix Helicopters and Planes in any fun way. So 5) many people would prefer ED to focus on other aspects before turning to FPS.

Case in point: I wrote an MP mission a few months ago that, when you were shot down, you had to wait for one of your friends to come and rescue you (using a Hind or Huey) - the mission generates a CSAR and places an ELT on you so people can home in on your radio. Consensus is: it's not fun at all to wait 45 minutes for someone to pick you up, and then wait another 30 minutes to be ferried back to base before you can jump in the next cockpit. And that's supposing that you ejected less that 100 km from your base - or ingress to your downed pilot and return will take even longer.

 

On 10/9/2021 at 11:24 AM, Nahen said:

Mix DCS with Arma would be the most beautiful multiplayer game that could be created. Servers that would work "non-stop" on which would take place endless wars with the use of infantry, vehicles and aviation ... ehhh you can dream ... In fact, Arma already gives a substitute for something like this - unfortunately it "too small" terrain for use of jet airplanes.

I am sure that there would be thousands of players who would fill these hundreds of square kilometers of maps by doing what they enjoy the most. Some would fly fighters, others drive tanks, transporters, jeeps, fighting with each other and calling for A-10 / Su-25 support when they needed it. Special forces transferred by helicopters would do their job, being able to count on the support of artillery, aviation and vehicles.

There are many people who can walk for hours in Arma3, so they would be happy to do it here as well. A shot down pilot, if he only wanted, could wait for the CSAR mission - if no, cant be forced it- but surely there would be as many people willing to wait for the rescue as those who would like to respawn in the cockpit in three seconds.

Maybe in 100 years my grandchildren will see such a game;)

I completely disagree with your take on what can and can't mix well. Speed of individual units has absolutely nothing to do with it, and please let me explain why.

The ability to build a mission in DCS World that mixes jets/helicopters/infantry/navy in a fun and interesting way is a function of the mission designers imagination and nothing else. A ground unit might request a strike package from a carrier based jet that is cruising 60 miles offshore. Nothing is saying that the mission has to be jets against foot soldiers. And nothing is saying that the foot soldier wont have his own buddies in jets, or that he wont have surface-to-air capabilities. 

In real life, boots and wings actually mix very well, and have done so since aviation was a thing.

As a mission designer, if you intend to have jets supporting tanks, I would hope that you wouldn't have them leaving from the same air base, or at least not at the same time. Wouldn't a better approach be to have the tanks engaged at a forward position where the jet pilot would have to fly to before giving support? 

I have no doubt writing a mission where someone sits and stares at the ground for hours would be seen as boring for 99.9% of the people brave enough to run it, but that's the point, the mission is to build excitement into what happens. If someone sees spending literally hours waiting to be rescued before being able to respawn back in a plane as fun, then all I can say is each to his own.

But I don't think that concept of fun defines whether jets and boots mix.

If the intention is to have a mission where a downed pilot waits for search and rescue, then that is what anyone running the mission should expect. I would think that scenario would work better though by having the real player doing the search and rescue, and the downed pilot waiting as simply Ai. In other words, you get shot down and have to eject. You then immediately spawn into a search and rescue role where you fly out to pick your Ai-self up.

I wanted to quote the two posts that I did to show how our frame of mind affects our opinions. Your opinion that jets can't exist in the same world as foot soldiers is troubling to me, because believe it or not, that is what's currently on the news channel I'm watching.

Regarding DCS World and the use of ground units, after watching hours of YouTube video on Steal beasts/Arma3, I don't get the notion that DCS is so bad. In terms of map size? In terms of graphics? In terms of the number and type of available ground units? The only thing Arma3 has at the moment is a much better infantry model IMO. And I am not talking about the FPS feature. If DCS had a larger number of available Ai infantry types (WWII quality level), with Ai logic that could realistically attack/defend real players in aircraft/ground units, there would be very little for Arma3 to offer other than its specialty as a FPS. Steal Beasts is a real world simulation of the Abrams, but DCS is so much more.

And the bit about JTAC, again it all depends on how you see things @cfrag.

I personally think that the JTAC feature in Combined Arms is one of its best features. I can't knock you for thinking that its not, because in part, I think ED might be responsible for some of the blame here.

I am sure most here would agree that having the ability to have real players marking targets for other real players in aircraft as a flight centered SIM is a pretty cool feature. Especially considering that JTAC is a very demanding role in real life. If nothing else, it brings a level of complexity to war game simulation never before seen.

The point I am driving at is that the JTAC role is so significant, it might be the reason ED names one of the three roles available in CA after it. I think the roles would have been more appropriately named: Game Master, Tactical Commander, and Vehicle Commander. Your description of the JTAC role is the point I am trying to get to, because I think you are not alone in that feeling. My impression is that a lot of people understand the JTAC role in CA as simply marking targets.

As a recap, the different levels of control for the 4 different slots are

Game Master: Able to see and control all units on both sides even when fog-of-war is turned on. Able to use JTAC feature.

Tactical Commander: Able to see and control all units from his/her own coalition. Able to see all enemy units when fog-of-war is turned off. Able to use JTAC feature.

JTAC: Able to see all units from his/her own coalition. Able to see all enemy units when fog-of-war is turned off. Able to control only the vehicle he/she is driving. Able to control Ai units in a group when controlling the primary vehicle of a group.

Observer: able to see the battle field from all camera positions.

In other words, when you are in a JTAC slot, you are not limited to only marking targets. Depending on the vehicle you are in, you can also be very much in the fight. Lets say you are in the primary vehicle of an Abrams platoon, and you are being confronted by an overwhelming force. You can use the JTAC feature to guide an incoming airstrike to clear the way. I know this doesn't come across well, but it might have more to do with how ED describes the CA product than anything else.

     

[cfrag]

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The ability to build a mission in DCS World that mixes jets/helicopters/infantry/navy in a fun and interesting way is a function of the mission designers imagination and nothing else.

Just like the ability of running a mile in under one second is just a function of the runner's ability to imagine it? Some things sound simple, but can't be done unless you change something fundamental (like physics). I admit that my imagination is limited, so here's your chance to prove that point: Simply write a string of interesting missions that combines infantry (freely moving about at < 10 km/h must feature prominently with at least one player) and aircraft in the same team, and that includes rescuing downed pilots (i.e. players that start as pilots and then change to infantry mode). I couldn't do it, and as you said (and I agree): that means nothing. I'm hoping someone else finds a successful formula so I can emulate that. Just because nobody could do in the past few years doesn't mean it's impossible. It is a strong indicator of major difficulties, though. Please show me that I'm wrong.

 

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I would think that scenario would work better though by having the real player doing the search and rescue, and the downed pilot waiting as simply Ai.

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is the exact antithesis of this thread. It's why I wrote that these missions don't work well as a downed player pilot on the ground waiting for pick-up.

 

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You then immediately spawn into a search and rescue role where you fly out to pick your Ai-self up.

That is how I implemented it, and people agree that is much better. But that's not what this tread is about. (Note: above also assumes that the player in question owns a helicopter module and knows how to fly it).

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

As a mission designer, if you intend to have jets supporting tanks, I would hope that you wouldn't have them leaving from the same air base, or at least not at the same time. Wouldn't a better approach be to have the tanks engaged at a forward position where the jet pilot would have to fly to before giving support?

It is, and that is how it's done today. The biggest criticism I hear from players who play this way is that if you as a team of friends do this, it doesn't work as a team when you assume both roles: ground and air. Since the support aircraft are only overhead for minutes at most, and the ground forces are engaging the enemy for 40 minutes straight, there is very little feeling of team play. Meaning: your two teams might as well be playing different games because you do not play as a team for 90% of the time. No doubt about it being fun for the individual. It's about having fun together, else you might as well solo. That's what I mean when saying these roles don't mix well.

 

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

In real life, boots and wings actually mix very well, and have done so since aviation was a thing.

If you want to kill the enemy yes. Note that people in real life do not engage in this activity to be entertained. Soldiers generally don't have fun fighting. DCS has an entirely different premise since it's entirely about having fun while fighting. What's effective in real life doesn't always translate well into fun games. The trick is to make boots and jets mix in a fun way when all players are on the same team. 
 

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Your opinion that jets can't exist in the same world as foot soldiers is troubling to me, because believe it or not, that is what's currently on the news channel I'm watching.

Yes, and I agree that a 15 seconds news-clip might look exciting. DCS missions aren't 15 seconds long. To reiterate: what is happening in real life does not necessarily make a good game. Case in point: looking back at my two years as boots on the ground (mid-1980) in northern Germany waiting for the East-German NVA to attack was boring. AND we were happy they didn't attack. Sitting around doing nothing, watching the occasional fighter aircraft pass overhead, then relocating 12 klicks to the west was my daily life for months on end. I would not want to play that as a game. In games, I expect to be entertained - or I'll switch to another game. Turning real-life tasks into fun games is the challenge for a mission designer. Some premises work, others fail miserably until someone shows the world how it can be done. So far I have failed. Maybe you can succeed where I didn't?

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by cfrag

[Callsign112]

21 hours ago, cfrag said:

Just like the ability of running a mile in under one second is just a function of the runner's ability to imagine it? Some things sound simple, but can't be done unless you change something fundamental (like physics). I admit that my imagination is limited, so here's your chance to prove that point: Simply write a string of interesting missions that combines infantry (freely moving about at < 10 km/h must feature prominently with at least one player) and aircraft in the same team, and that includes rescuing downed pilots (i.e. players that start as pilots and then change to infantry mode). I couldn't do it, and as you said (and I agree): that means nothing. I'm hoping someone else finds a successful formula so I can emulate that. Just because nobody could do in the past few years doesn't mean it's impossible. It is a strong indicator of major difficulties, though. Please show me that I'm wrong.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is the exact antithesis of this thread. It's why I wrote that these missions don't work well as a downed player pilot on the ground waiting for pick-up.

 

That is how I implemented it, and people agree that is much better. But that's not what this tread is about. (Note: above also assumes that the player in question owns a helicopter module and knows how to fly it).

It is, and that is how it's done today. The biggest criticism I hear from players who play this way is that if you as a team of friends do this, it doesn't work as a team when you assume both roles: ground and air. Since the support aircraft are only overhead for minutes at most, and the ground forces are engaging the enemy for 40 minutes straight, there is very little feeling of team play. Meaning: your two teams might as well be playing different games because you do not play as a team for 90% of the time. No doubt about it being fun for the individual. It's about having fun together, else you might as well solo. That's what I mean when saying these roles don't mix well.

 

If you want to kill the enemy yes. Note that people in real life do not engage in this activity to be entertained. Soldiers generally don't have fun fighting. DCS has an entirely different premise since it's entirely about having fun while fighting. What's effective in real life doesn't always translate well into fun games. The trick is to make boots and jets mix in a fun way when all players are on the same team. 
 

Yes, and I agree that a 15 seconds news-clip might look exciting. DCS missions aren't 15 seconds long. To reiterate: what is happening in real life does not necessarily make a good game. Case in point: looking back at my two years as boots on the ground (mid-1980) in northern Germany waiting for the East-German NVA to attack was boring. AND we were happy they didn't attack. Sitting around doing nothing, watching the occasional fighter aircraft pass overhead, then relocating 12 klicks to the west was my daily life for months on end. I would not want to play that as a game. In games, I expect to be entertained - or I'll switch to another game. Turning real-life tasks into fun games is the challenge for a mission designer. Some premises work, others fail miserably until someone shows the world how it can be done. So far I have failed. Maybe you can succeed where I didn't?

 

 

I didn't originally respond to the OP because I don't agree with/get the point behind the request unless it is for something other than the downed pilot just standing around doing nothing. I know its a common request, but I just assumed the vast majority of people if asked would be more interested in flying the search and rescue mission to retrieve their pilot after being shot down, then they would be in actually doing the standing around part waiting to be picked up. I was just guessing that the request must be attached somehow with the players stats/career, or something like that. But you seem to have taken the request quite literally, and I thought that was interesting.

The reason I decided to contribute to this thread was because of point #4 in your original post, and the comments you made regarding your views on CA. In the text at the top of your quote in this post, you are comparing something that is not possible with something that is. I'm not sure what you mean by "freely running" infantry, but unless you mean infantry that you gave a bunch of way points to, then what your suggesting can't be done because that feature hasn't been made part of the SIM yet. But you can on the other hand combine air/ground/sea assets in the same mission similar to the way it happens in real life. The attached video is just an example, but it includes jets, helicopters, tanks, and infantry.

You are likely much better at creating missions than I am, but I think the bigger difference might be just our outlook on things. For instance, the teamwork example you gave working with your friends. Lets say you created a mission where the objective was to have your armored units take a town. But before they can do that, you need air support to knock out the artillery battery that has the units pinned down, and is preventing them from crossing a bridge and reaching the town. So your buddies in the jets come to the rescue. Now if you want them to loiter around overhead longer, just give them something to do. Once they destroy all the artillery pieces, you could use a trigger to spawn a group of enemy jets to attack your armored units that your buddies now have to deal with. So while your armored units take control of the town, your buddies are kept busy watching your back.

Its like your experience in Germany, you could create a mission like that, but why would you want to? I created a mission where everyone on the airbase is sleeping. So yeah, lots of stuff going on in that one. I would think you have a lot of rich experience to draw from, all you have to do is add a "what-if" scenario to get a really exciting mission. But I have said it before, my impression is that CA is one of the most underrated misunderstood pieces of DCS World. I think a lot of people it seems are unclear on how to use it, mostly because documentation is so scarce. CA is a full featured combat training software, and what helped a lot with getting more use out of it was taking a closer look at the different roles, and how, when to use them. The Game Master is the instructor slot, but is also very useful in SP mode. Tactical Commander, and JTAC are the slots that should be filling MP missions, and or by the people receiving training.

I had a look in the downloads section for the CA user manual, but couldn't find it. Its a little dated, but I think it still covers all the main points if anyone is interested.

     

Combined Arms Manual EN(1).pdf

[cfrag]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But you can on the other hand combine air/ground/sea assets in the same mission similar to the way it happens in real life

I must have expressed myself awkwardly, so my apologies (English is not my mother's tongue). My Point 4 that you refer to boils down to

Quote

if you MP with your friends with you on foot, and them in the air, you wont's interact much. Why not then simply play an infantry game

My point is this: jets and boots don't mix well within the same team (as in: "me and my friends playing the same mission together and having fun"): You walk the ground/drive a Hummer, I fly a hog, Terry fighter-screens, and we are on the same mission, on the same side, with the same common objective. THAT currently does not mesh well, THAT is something I strive to implement and so far have failed to accomplish successfully (i.e. in a fun way for teams) - it's trivial to write boring (team-wise) missions that mix boots and jets: the boots (You) battle on-location and lase the occasional target, the Tomcats (Terry) will be on-location 20 minutes hence to provide cover for the Hog (me) that's due to arrive in 45 minutes. Been there, done that: Terry and I cold-start (she on a carrier, I at an airfield) and we ingress for 10 and 30 minutes, respectively. At the 40 minute mark, I get your nine-line, you start lasing. I drop my bombs and egress. That is boring from a team perspective (individually, it can be tremendously fun) because there is next to no cohesion between the players' (yours, mine, and Terry's) actions. We might as well play solo because we are not playing as a team. To me, it's not team play unless our constant interaction is pivotal to achieving the same goal. That is what I mean. I want all members of the team to have the feeling that they are doing something together, not that they merely share the same arena working on vaguely related tasks. The latter is "relatively" easy, and excellent missions exist to download or play on public servers. I can't do the former - which is what this thread is about. I ascribe part of the issue to the great differential in unit speed: because it is possible to create fun missions where you mix different planes and still fly as a team (I've written such missions). That works well (is fun as a team). Cohesion breaks somewhat when mixing rotor- and fixed wings. It doesn't work well (no cohesion, just "soloing") when I try to mix ground forces with fixed-wing. 

That being said, by your own words, we are are only limited by our imagination as mission designers (and, notably not by what is possible in-game, as you were quite explicit about that: 

On 11/15/2021 at 1:26 AM, Callsign112 said:

The ability to build a mission [...] in a fun and interesting way is a function of the mission designers imagination and nothing else [emphasis CFrag]

Consequently [snark, snark], I'm having some trouble correctly understanding your point that something "can't be done because that feature hasn't been made part of the SIM yet") - given sufficient imagination it should be easy to create such a mission and demonstrate how it's done. There's only a slight twinge of "oh, really??" here, because I really want to learn how to create such mission. I agree that they would tremendously add to what we have today.

So I propose that instead of opining about what would, could and should be possible and why, maybe to just go ahead and do it: "The proof is in the pudding", so to speak. I'll be the first to applaud - I want you to succeed, and for purely selfish reasons. I'll adjust my outlook immediately. Write a mission that interestingly mixes boots [ground units] with jets where you and I can have a blast as a team. And until you do, I take exception to you ascribing my inability to deliver such a mission to my "outlook". We aren't life coaches. Here, we put up, or shut up.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by cfrag

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

That is boring from a team perspective... because there is next to no cohesion between the players' (yours, mine, and Terry's) actions. We might as well play solo because we are not playing as a team. To me, it's not team play unless our constant interaction is pivotal to achieving the same goal. That is what I mean. I want all members of the team to have the feeling that they are doing something together, not that they merely share the same arena working on vaguely related tasks. The latter is "relatively" easy, and excellent missions exist to download or play on public servers. I can't do the former - which is what this thread is about. I ascribe part of the issue to the great differential in unit speed: because it is possible to create fun missions where you mix different planes and still fly as a team (I've written such missions). That works well (is fun as a team). Cohesion breaks somewhat when mixing rotor- and fixed wings. It doesn't work well (no cohesion, just "soloing") when I try to mix ground forces with fixed-wing.

 

 

 

We are getting a little off topic here. I don't mind as long as the OP doesn't mind. His request was to have first person infantry, and he might find this useful since your points can be loosely linked to how that might be used in a mission.

But in terms of mixing air and ground units then, you are discussing nothing but your own subjective point of view @cfrag, and not what actually is. So your going to have to bite the bullet and take your own advice on putting up! I have showed you a mission being played out with jets and tanks on one team, and jets, helicopters, tanks and infantry are on the other... mission accomplished! In the context of this conversation, whether you find a mission more, or less interesting is not relevant and I see no point in discussing it further.

But like I said, the biggest difference might be how we see things, and that is becoming clearer with every post. Just look at the bold text above. Your view seems to be that real world military operations are boring. I mean, DCS World is meant to simulate actual military scenarios using simulated versions of real world military equipment. I'm not knocking your point of view, or criticizing what you find interesting. I am just pointing out to you that in order to simulate real world combined arms scenarios, Eagle Dynamics had to let go of the concept that everyone should hold hands during the mission.

So when you originally responded to this thread and said that ground/air units cant be used in the same mission in a fun way, you meant because a tank doesn't drive at 10,000 feet going mach 1.2, and an F14 doesn't fly over rough terrain going 20KPH? In other words, you view point that air/ground units cant be used in the same mission in a fun way has nothing to do with the DCS World platform.  

[cfrag]

I agree that we have wandered too far off topic. 

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

In other words, you view point that air/ground units cant be used in the same mission in a fun way has nothing to do with the DCS World platform.  

No - and I'm not going to parse the definition of what <fun> and <team play> constitute. Let's make it simple:

I believe that currently in DCS, air and ground units can't simultaneously be used

• cohesively (i.e. constantly interacting) -- as opposed to when a player/part of the group acts independently
• for a significant part of a mission
• by the entire team

in a fun way. An example being OP's CSAR mission that I can't see a way to write in a fun way for the entire team. I believe that to be true partly because of a fundamental aspect of current DCS game play: their unit's speed differential prevents cohesive team play over prolonged time (>75% of entire mission time). If it's not cohesive team play you are after, you can mix air/ground quite easily in multi-play, no contest. I've written plenty of those.

Let's leave it at that. 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by cfrag

[shagrat]

Am 15.11.2021 um 07:47 schrieb cfrag:

To reiterate: what is happening in real life does not necessarily make a good game. Case in point: looking back at my two years as boots on the ground (mid-1980) in northern Germany waiting for the East-German NVA to attack was boring. AND we were happy they didn't attack. Sitting around doing nothing, watching the occasional fighter aircraft pass overhead, then relocating 12 klicks to the west was my daily life for months on end. I would not want to play that as a game. In games, I expect to be entertained - or I'll switch to another game. Turning real-life tasks into fun games is the challenge for a mission designer. 

You mean game designer? The difference is, we fly a hardcore simulation that tries very hard to replicate the real world and not a balanced, entertainment experience that you expect from a game.

Real conflict is a constant boredom, waiting for the short time of life threatening "entertainment", when someone tries to kill you. Some people play simulations to replicate real life experience, otherwise they would likely play one of the dozens of entertaining aircraft games available to suite the modern action addict with a 30 second attention span.

Usually mission designers in DCS already compromise a lot to reduce the boring part, but we need to realize that DCS is in no way a multiplayer online action game.

There is a lot of people out there that would find the 20-30 minutes startup, mission preparation and task planning before even take off, boring. I also know people who are happy sitting in a Huey, listening to the comms and watch the team bomb stuff in F2/F7 view, while waiting for an ejection and subsequent CSAR to happen. I personally often hop into a JTAC slot when I got shot down and guide attacks on ground units, lase targets or jump into a IFV, Tank or Humvee taking out ground forces.

One really fun scenario is a CAS mission with a village/confined area that has a human ground commander/JTAC and some flights of fast air supporting the ground forces to clear that area. While some aircraft run in on targets, some need to hit a tanker, or rearm, while you want a constant support and a plane with just a GBU-12 left, may not enough to safe the day. Another way to have fun is switching slots, especially when doing the ground commander role...

And I have to say, sitting in a Humvee and watching/ hearing bombs drop danger close, jets howling overhead or the A-10C brrrrrt followed by the hailstorm of metal walking over an enemy group closing in on your position is definitely not boring for me.

 

[cfrag]

1 minute ago, shagrat said:

You mean game designer? The difference is, we fly a hardcore simulation that tries very hard to replicate the real world and not a balanced, entertainment experience that you expect from a game.

Game designers even more so, but also (in a lesser way, as the scope is narrower) for mission designers (in this thread at least). 

And while I agree that DCS does go a long way to simulate realism, it's a game first and foremost, with ED making active design decisions daily to significantly strip out the boredom and tedious busywork of reality in order to make a better, more entertaining game and sell more units. As such, DCS is of course brilliantly balanced. Let's not go down the "DCS is not a game" path today: the fact that DCS is curtailed for entertainment is a good thing. I would also posit that a large (maybe even larger) part of DCS's customers are non-hardcore players who like hot- or even (gasp!) air-starts, symbols, and easy communications (which, together with immortality, 3-minute magic repairs, no consequences and no paperwork (!!!!) for damaged planes/civilians are dead give-aways that we are playing a game). 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Real conflict is a constant boredom, [... many good points omitted ...]

The nature of DCS wasn't at issue here, something else is: What new features can make DCS's missions even better? When I design a mission, I'm wondering about what my players would like, what makes them feel that their time spent playing this mission is time spent well. OP's proposed CSAR mission - a player pilot is shot down, hides until they are recovered by a different player's helicopter and then returned to base - looks to me to be a difficult proposition to write in a way that would be regarded as worth all of the player's time. The CSAR helicopter pilot/co-pilot: sure, including cold start (and briefing if that were available in DCS). Same for the escort helicopter(s). The gunners inside the helo (assuming a Huey)? Tough sell, but mmmmmaybe. The downed pilot who has to wait some 45 minutes for pick-up, then hops aboard and spends the next 40 minutes being carried back to base? Heck no - there is no way I can make that mission work for the focus of OP's suggestion: the downed pilot. Writing the exact same CSAR missions with having an AI waiting instead of a player? Easy Peasy (except, again, for the gunners). But that was definitely not the OP's idea. 

My comment meandered to related topics, and the for me important question if and how I can create a mission for a team of some (say: four) people that - as a team - would enjoy working together, have the quality of their cohesion be a decisive factor. I noted that so far I can't make a mission work where everyone works together cohesively and the team is split over ground and air units. If cohesion isn't a factor, that's easy: Some players jump into planes, others drive tanks and hummers; they occasionally talk to each other, perhaps even see each other a couple of times and finally the mission's goal is achieved. My problem with this: they might as well have played solo, their interaction was not the deciding factor. 

[shagrat]

vor 41 Minuten schrieb cfrag:

Game designers even more so, but also (in a lesser way, as the scope is narrower) for mission designers (in this thread at least). 

And while I agree that DCS does go a long way to simulate realism, it's a game first and foremost, with ED making active design decisions daily to significantly strip out the boredom and tedious busywork of reality in order to make a better, more entertaining game and sell more units. As such, DCS is of course brilliantly balanced. Let's not go down the "DCS is not a game" path today: the fact that DCS is curtailed for entertainment is a good thing. I would also posit that a large (maybe even larger) part of DCS's customers are non-hardcore players who like hot- or even (gasp!) air-starts, symbols, and easy communications (which, together with immortality, 3-minute magic repairs, no consequences and no paperwork (!!!!) for damaged planes/civilians are dead give-aways that we are playing a game). 

The nature of DCS wasn't at issue here, something else is: What new features can make DCS's missions even better? When I design a mission, I'm wondering about what my players would like, what makes them feel that their time spent playing this mission is time spent well. OP's proposed CSAR mission - a player pilot is shot down, hides until they are recovered by a different player's helicopter and then returned to base - looks to me to be a difficult proposition to write in a way that would be regarded as worth all of the player's time. The CSAR helicopter pilot/co-pilot: sure, including cold start (and briefing if that were available in DCS). Same for the escort helicopter(s). The gunners inside the helo (assuming a Huey)? Tough sell, but mmmmmaybe. The downed pilot who has to wait some 45 minutes for pick-up, then hops aboard and spends the next 40 minutes being carried back to base? Heck no - there is no way I can make that mission work for the focus of OP's suggestion: the downed pilot. Writing the exact same CSAR missions with having an AI waiting instead of a player? Easy Peasy (except, again, for the gunners). But that was definitely not the OP's idea. 

My comment meandered to related topics, and the for me important question if and how I can create a mission for a team of some (say: four) people that - as a team - would enjoy working together, have the quality of their cohesion be a decisive factor. I noted that so far I can't make a mission work where everyone works together cohesively and the team is split over ground and air units. If cohesion isn't a factor, that's easy: Some players jump into planes, others drive tanks and hummers; they occasionally talk to each other, perhaps even see each other a couple of times and finally the mission's goal is achieved. My problem with this: they might as well have played solo, their interaction was not the deciding factor. 

I agree with most of it, but the point I was trying to get across is, people are individuals and what one find boring is thrilling and rewarding to another. Just by trying to predict preference and interest of your players in creating a Mission for "the player(s)" cannot work.

What you do, as a mission designer is, building a scenario that you find "fun", "thrilling" and "worth your time". This then attracts like-minded players, but also likely appall other players who have different preferences...

The thing about fun is, that it is a very personal and often surprising emotion triggered by the most unusual experience.

From my experience I had a lot of fun with DCS doing things, that would you have asked me if I would enjoy that, I would have my doubts. For example I flew a resupply mission in the C-130 Hercules mod with a friend of mine. And I mean the full monty, planning the course, going through the checklist, taxiing, start and leaving control zone, climbing to altitude, watching the clouds and doing course corrections for 40 min switching aircraft control twice, descending and doing a field strip landing in disputed territory (the only part with the remote chance of some action), unloaded our cargo, took off again and had that one moment of adrenaline when the AAA from the contested town flew our way and we punched flares in fear of a potential MANPAD and got the hell outta Dodge, with full power and a combat turn. Then climbed to safe altitude, made our way home and landed, after a good two hours.

I wasn't expecting the flight to take that long, messed up the wind calculation, underestimated preparation and startup time etc., but instead it was an evening well spent and enjoyed. The AAA surprise and perceived MANPAD threat was genuine thrilling.

Bottom line: the mission you create will always attract people that enjoy the mission you made. Some will try it once and never touch it again, others will love it and always come back to it.  There is fun to be found in a lot of different ways. The same goes for the combined arms integration. You can have fun with JTAC slots, jump into a helicopter and try CSAR (the guy on the ground could simply directing A-10s or other Jets on advancing enemy search parties or use external views to enjoy the show... Some people vmay enjoy that.

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

I agree that we have wandered too far off topic. 

No - and I'm not going to parse the definition of what <fun> and <team play> constitute. Let's make it simple:

I believe that currently in DCS, air and ground units can't simultaneously be used

• cohesively (i.e. constantly interacting) -- as opposed to when a player/part of the group acts independently
• for a significant part of a mission
• by the entire team

in a fun way. An example being OP's CSAR mission that I can't see a way to write in a fun way for the entire team. I believe that to be true partly because of a fundamental aspect of current DCS game play: their unit's speed differential prevents cohesive team play over prolonged time (>75% of entire mission time). If it's not cohesive team play you are after, you can mix air/ground quite easily in multi-play, no contest. I've written plenty of those.

Let's leave it at that. 

 

 

If your definition of simultaneously using air and ground units means that they have to be driving/flying within arms length from each other, then that definition isn't part of the natural world we live in, will never happen in the real world, and I don't think we can hold any reasonable expectation to see it in a simulation of the real world either.

 I would have never responded to your comments had I known they were based simply on your own opinion of what combined arms is.

@shagrat's resupply mission is a perfect example IMO of air and ground forces working in a coordinated, cohesive way to achieve a single goal. The fact that he is in a plane carrying supplies I would think makes it obvious that he has to arrive by air to deliver the needed supplies to keep the grounds units fighting at full strength. That is the cohesive element of the mission. His air speed has no impact on how fast the ground units are moving, or their ability to work cohesively, because their interaction together is done through radio communications. His ability to keep his end of the bargain and successfully perform his part of the mission is a good example of working together. And unless your friends are sitting in the same room as you, then like in real life where someone is in a tank, while someone else is in a C-130, they will be seeing the battle field from their own discrete perspectives. 

But its all good @cfrag, I am not here to challenge your views, or what your interests are. I can see now how my initial post was taken as a challenge, but you have to accept that my initial post was also made under the assumption that we were both using the known definition of CA in terms of what it actually is. 

[Razorjet XII]

Um... No it wasn't.

On 11/17/2021 at 12:57 AM, Callsign112 said:

His request was to have first person infantry, and he might find this useful since your points can be loosely linked to how that might be used in a mission.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Razorjet XII

[Callsign112]

On 10/9/2021 at 5:59 AM, Razorjet XII said:

... This brings me onto my second point. Survival kits. Maybe after you eject, you can access your survival kit to use a survival radio and other tools that could help you survive while waiting for CSAR... Now, my final point, the most important one, Walking Around Freely. There should be a function to get out of an Aircraft without ejecting, and getting into an Aircraft (When possible).

 

Well if that isn't what you are requesting in the quoted text above, then that is how I read it. Among other things like having a S&R helo pick you up, it appears to me that you are requesting more control over your pilot in first person. If that is not the case, then just a heads up, that is how your request comes across.

Regardless, your free to ask whatever it is you want, but that brings me to the question I was wondering about. @cfrag did a mission for his group where after being shot down and having to eject, the pilot can wait to be picked up, but it wasn't well received because the majority of players in his group didn't find the long periods waiting to be picked up very fun. I was curious to know if based on the request you making, would you rather wait up to 1.5 hours to be rescued before being able to spawn back into a plane, or would you rather immediately after ejecting spawn into the S&R role and fly the mission to pick the downed pilot up yourself?

[Callsign112]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:43 PM, cfrag said:

 If cohesion isn't a factor, that's easy: Some players jump into planes, others drive tanks and hummers; they occasionally talk to each other, perhaps even see each other a couple of times and finally the mission's goal is achieved. My problem with this: they might as well have played solo, their interaction was not the deciding factor. 

This is stressing a mute point, but what I think this boils down to @Razorjet XII is more just the way you see things and nothing else.

Working in a cohesive way with someone doesn't mean if your in a tank, I have to be in something moving the same speed. If the mission was to have ground units capture a town/strong point, but in order to do that, the ground units need support from air units to take out an artillery battery, then the pilot taking out the artillery battery is working in unison/together with the ground units to achieve the mission objective. That is what working in a coordinated cohesive way means. As you can see from the example I gave, their interaction would absolutely be the deciding factor.

And this point is repeated in the request you made. If you get shot down and have to eject, your request would be to have an air unit come to your rescue. As the downed pilot, you would be absolutely banking on the physics behind the science that allows flight to occur, because if anything untoward happens to the rescue helicopter's air speed in flight, you will likely loose your ride.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Callsign112

[cfrag]

22 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

That is what working in a coordinated cohesive way means. As you can see from the example I gave, their interaction would absolutely be the deciding factor.

We simply don't see eye to eye on this. I strive to write missions for a group of people to have fun while working as a team for the majority of the mission's duration. You are looking at (quite valid) instances where player-controlled ground and air forces work together successfully. In your example there are perhaps 5 minutes of team work between ground and air, the rest of the time it's solo work for the individuals. What are the CAS players doing for the rest of the time when they aren't needed? Loiter until they are. So let's give them something else to do, perhaps SEAD? Fine, but for that the ground units aren't needed. So the ground units solo until they need support again and call for it. Then they wait until the air units become available (perhaps they are still on SEAD) and arrive. In my mind, that's not a team mission: That's merely a group of friends who are happening to be playing the same mission, not playing a mission as a team. I'm not saying that a mission as described above can't be fun. It's just not what I'm after. It's the root of my "don't mix well" comment.

In any event, we have strayed too far from the thread. Thank you for your perspective on this.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by cfrag

[Callsign112]

Yeah I understood you the first time, but that is not how combined arms works.

I don't expect to see my wing man in an Abrams, or the rest of my platoon following me in F14's.

As the mission designer, how you keep everyone busy during the mission is really up to you. Whether you have them standing around, or doing something else, I am sure you are going to get feedback on it from your group.

But I have to wonder at this point if your original advice that the OP play an infantry game couldn't be put to good use here? The only difference being, you might be looking for a plane only game.

I would encourage you to keep exploring DCS World though, as it offers a much more enriching experience than other platforms that have only a single focus. And the reason behind the more enriching experience IMO is the level of detail ED puts in its products, and the ability to have real combined arms game play.