Jump to content
Steelbeasts.com

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Been a long time since i fired up combined arms.

Have they improved the fidelity at all.

Adding new well modelled AFV,s is good but my previous experience with CA was poor fidelity more War thunder then sim.

Edited by Marko
Link to post
Share on other sites

I played around with Combined Arms a bit and found infantry got a very short shrift.  This was a couple years ago and felt it was just one step above World of Tanks also.  I have a hard time seeing it as a replacement for SB in either the semi-realistic modern combined arms realm or as a tank combat simulator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, thewood said:

I played around with Combined Arms a bit and found infantry got a very short shrift.  This was a couple years ago and felt it was just one step above World of Tanks also.  I have a hard time seeing it as a replacement for SB in either the semi-realistic modern combined arms realm or as a tank combat simulator. 

I play DCS CA consistently and find it enjoyable - knowing what its strengths are. 

 

There is a lot of potential to continue improving the module. 

 

It doesn't have the same turret fidelity as Steel Beasts. I find that to be OK because the two programs have each have a very different scope, so probably not fair to compare them. 

 

Comparing the M1 in DCS to Steel Beasts would be the equivalent of comparing the F-18 in Steel Beasts to DCS 😉

 

Edited by Apocalypse 31
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, CA doesn't seem to know what it is.  It still seems more like the units in CA are only a step above being ground targets.  It looks pretty, but is kind of shallow.  My biggest gripe and why I gave up was the lack of any intelligence in the AI and no scripting available to compensate.  Might have changed since then, but thats what I left with.  I got more playing around with ARMA3.  But it was an immense amount of work and AI with vehicles was poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thewood said:

To me, CA doesn't seem to know what it is.  It still seems more like the units in CA are only a step above being ground targets.  It looks pretty, but is kind of shallow.  My biggest gripe and why I gave up was the lack of any intelligence in the AI and no scripting available to compensate.  Might have changed since then, but thats what I left with.  I got more playing around with ARMA3.  But it was an immense amount of work and AI with vehicles was poor.

I haven't had too much trouble with AI- I think the waypoint control is definitely not as good as SB, but much better than ARMA. 

 

The DCS ground units will follow their routes and will engage stuff- compared to ARMA - that's pretty good!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I remember it.  I was always kind of shocked at how poor the graphics were.  I'm sure in the three years since I tried it, its been updated, but at that time, there was almost no control over how infantry, and some vehicles, travelled and engaged infantry.  If the AI had been more than just go there and shoot, I could have lived with it.  But there seemed to be no way to set infantry and vehicles to respond to threats, other than shoot at it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

... the two programs have each have a very different scope, so probably not fair to compare them ...


Could you maybe give some more info on the differences in scope ?

 

Thx !

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, thewood said:

But there seemed to be no way to set infantry and vehicles to respond to threats, other than shoot at it.

It's a game focused on combat, what else do you want them to do?

 

Do you want them to execute battle drills, and start bounding forward with one section providing covering fire and the other moving?

 

If so, let me know what game offers that because I'd gladly play it - I think Combat Mission comes close, but even then the infantry get to a point where they no longer advance into gunfire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal gripe with DCS is the hardware necessary to run the sim at the top alcohol funny car level. 

 

Having a rig capable of operating it glass smooth quickly scales up into the thousands. 
To me the ground units are flavour items that you have the ability to use but not the focus. 

 

And like the sucker I am, I will be making further investment into DCS in the future with the acquisition of the VR kit from Steam. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant having units advance and seek cover when under fire, retreat under fire, formations, etc.  CM and SB both do some of that.  The player had to sit on top of every unit and make them respond and adjust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Froggy said:

Helped him to improve the optics  and give unclassified datas

Great! 

 

It seems like a community wish that these vehicles/assets be added to the vanilla game.

 

I hope Eagle Dynamics will consider it given their....hefty...roadmap for 2021.

 

Which also includes development of Combined Arms 2.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...