Sniping fest or just me having real bad luck?

No matter what I do... Low hull, on the edge of a ridge, tucked between two buildings or extreme range in a forest clearing, I'll get sniped more or less instantly by ennemy armour.
Calling in arty to soften them ain't much help either, they won't move although shells are raining on them. They just wait there until I show the tip of my nose and I'm done.

I understand I should probably go in first with my Hawg, but my X52 is down. Planning a trip to the px store but higher command sees differently.
Armour can't reasonnably do the job in the meantime?

Anyone else?

Cheers,
Slug

Yeah I think most are experiencing this. I know I have, every time I come up over a hill BAM! Blown away. The good news is its stilla BETA. So we might get a fix for it! Oh and MLRS can send quite the volley of missiles at enemy tanks! The might not move but they do get blown up!

Gotta keep your distance, The AI accuracy decreases at long ranges, it is relatively easy to pick them off if they are stationary.

Nate

Yeah, I'm finding that the T-80s are super accurate with their ATGMs, first round hits almost 100% of the time, and they're firing as soon as they detect me.

This wouldn't be so bad if there were proper fire control systems on non guided tank armaments. Maybe then you could get a shot off first and have a chance of hitting, rather than having to guess range and fire 10 rounds trying to walk onto the target. Has anyone heard whether they plan to include fire control systems with rangefinders etc?

Tactics! Flanking maneuvers, concentration of force, use of terrain, artillery, etc. There's a reason guys have years of training before they lead ground combat forces.

As for range finders, if you're in control of a unit and press Enter to lock up a bad guy, the range to target shows up at the bottom left of the screen. No guessing required.

...well, you still have to guess what elevation to fire your cannon at, and when you combine that with the fact that the T-80s have just about 100% probability of hit with those missiles, there's an unrealistic imbalance in capabilities. In an M1 or a Leo2, the FCS automatically elevates the barrel to fire at the appropriate range, giving it a much higher probability of hit tham in the game.

I don't think the issue is that the T-80s are too accurate, i think it's that the western tanks don't have realistic FCS which leaves them with a severe and unrealistic handicap.

You could try enabling the Firing control computer option - then hit enter to lock the target and it will give a firing solution for you to aim at.

Nate

Yeah, i treid that, still doesn't cut it. The aiming circle given to you as a firing soloution is huge, and it's still difficult to know where exactly you have to aim. It's still taking several rounds to get rounds landing at the correct range. That's not realstic.

Against stationary targets you should merely have to point your crosshair at the target, hit the "lase" button, and fire.

The very first thing ED said about CA was that it wasn't attempting to be realistic. That may come in the future but not right now.

Nate

They said that CA isn't aiming at SBPRO level of simulation of individual vehicles. CA's goals are to broaden tactical options for the game, and allow the player(s) to control more of the battle ... not to have accurately modeled armor. That may come in the future if someone makes armor/other vehicle modules, but not in CA.

It is really good.

Sorry... it's not... i understand what the purpose is, based on statements and feedback... but the original poster is 100% right...



There is none of that in CA at this stage, maybe later? who knows... There is artillery, it's taken out a few units, but does nothing to suppress or force them out of a defense, if you flank, great... if you get shots off you'll get them first but 90% of the time you have to expose yourself before that happens, and any slight exposer gets missiles and shells fired at you in volleys imediately... I would love for someone to prove me wrong and show a video of a proper ground attack using CA... please do.

Like I said, I understand what the purpose is... the JTAC with friends, in co-op works and is fun, but this terrain and engagement models are not even close to being a productive representation of ground combat. I know this ain't SB Pro PE... but hell, Battlefield 3 does ground combat better then DSC Combined Arms. IMO.

JMO

This is definetly not Steel Beast and for now the only way to play CA is giving AI new routes and move units around to get a more dynamic environement for A2G pilots. Tank battle human vs human in one tank each is possible.

(R)

I like the JTAC angle and though I like the opportunity for someone to control the action on the ground I'm not 100% thrilled to see how the first person control is shaping up. In A-10C, that decreased level of realism is called "arcade mode" and I'm not entirely certain how popular it is. Or, it's more popular and those of us who are more in tune with realism are the dying breed- though I doubt it.

So- I can see that one person can jump in any number of vehicles... but I'm assuming that anyone on the same side with combined arms would be able to join in any particular position?

Or is the person controlling the ground warfare the only person who can play in that role unless they get killed or simply opt into another vehicle in the MP slots? one JTAC on each side and then everyone scrambles into a vehicle for a suicide mission?

I'm so confused.


In building a mission if you wanted to have a ground controller, do you just make the ground controller position available? Or will the guy with CA have open access to any and all vehicles on the battlefield? Or do you just make certain slots for friendly vehicles available and a person works within that group?

I know crew is going to hate me for this but judging by the amount of opportunity people will have to just stomp into any game they want and absolutely decimate anyone's suspension of disbelief... we might HAVE to move to locked servers. In A-10C you really limit your audience and don't get too many idiots- but now that we have this ground arcade format game developing in tandem... it really opens the door.

Maybe ED should have left the first person stuff at the JTAC position.

I'm still disappointed that CA is drawing resources away from EDs flightsim products. Before I'd seen it I was prepared to give ED the benefit of the doubt, now I have seen it and it's confirmed all my missgivings. Vehicle controls are extremely basic and the current terrain isn't detailed enough to provide any sort of realistic ground action. This an arcade product and a poor one at that. It'll take a massive amount of work to turn it into a good modern ground war simulator.

Don't forget that DCS Combined Arms is beta. ED hasn't promised a study-sim-like feel for each of the vehicles in CA, but they have acknowledged that the level is pretty low right now. An optimist would believe that ED is furiously working on improvements, while the pessimists think this is the best it's going to get. As a realist, I'm waiting for the full release before I pass final judgement on the product.

I'm all for realism, be it in the air or on the ground.
Flaming CA is certainly not my intention and I'm not disappointed whatsoever. Still Beta and I'm a fairly patient fellow.

What are the possible 3rd party candidates for armour realism? I have absolutely no idea, all my sims always been flight-related
Can anyone point to some websites?

Cheers,
Slug

I'd like to see them walk away from this, move the JTAC over into the A-10 module and call it square. Just what I need is for some guy driving an arcade SAM around the map spawncamping me as I take off after a 20 minute ordeal getting my plane in the air.

I guess there is some promise in the concept of a few guys engaged in a land battle needing air support- and perhaps over time that is what will be achieved.

This simply require intelligent mission design - a few T-80s will sort out that SAM well before it gets any where near you base.

Nate

There's Steel Beasts Pro PE, which isn't perfect either, but far more realistic. I loved SB Pro PE (had it and sold it), but for the price the AI should be a lot better than what it is. Personally, I didn't want to keep $100+ into a game in which I had to babysit a unit to ensure that it crossed a bridge properly instead of bypassing the bridge for no reason and getting stuck in a ditch. Things like that shouldn't happen on what's supposed to be a high level sim. It's not like the bridge is far either, I've had units just a few feet away from a bridge get stuck right next to it which is ridiculous. Pathing through very light woods is also terrible, I've had tanks sit in front of a tree until I took control to make one simple movement in plenty of clearance to get them going again. Still, it's a solid game though and the best tank sim on the market. Hopefully the AI has improved since I've played it, if so I definitely need to buy it again. Since DCS CA is also being touted as an RTS then I think games like Decisive Action come into comparison. DA also being a better simulation that's more challenging and provides in-depth ground/mechanized combat. There's a lot out there if you're playing purely from a strategic 2-D view.

Agree. The real-time strategy aspect is frankly brilliant and I would have much preferred ED to include the air (like Total Air War or that AWACS command game which an independent team is developing) and maybe even naval (like Dangerous Waters or even Harpoon) units in this instead of having first person armour control.



Again I concur. What disappoints me most is actually that trees are still neither collidable nor line-of-sight obstacles - that was a fairly minor issue prior to Black Shark but should have been very near the top on the list of priorities ever since and given the nature of CA it is almost inexcusable now. Currently it feels rather hastily put together with issues like this - as mentioned above, focusing more on broadening and deepening the capabilities command map would probably have made it a more well-rounded product more quickly. Basically, the DCS engine isn't quite ready yet for a first person armour implementation that integrates well with the other products - armour is typically operated by several crew members, so the the threshold to a representation which feels balanced and realistic to handle is very high.

IMO I think you guys are overreacting a bit. To achieve that scenario you've just imagined up there, there would have to be someone who has the patience to drive a mobile SAM all the way to your air base (that takes a damn long time you know). Then, assuming you've just taken off, they still have to visually spot you, aim and fire either their guns, which you shouldn't have too much of a problem avoiding if you stick to the terrain, or their IR missiles, which is not nearly as "fire and forget" as its described, mainly which you have to be in range and you have to keep the aiming circle on your aircraft. And even then you have more countermeasures.

Umm, I don't think there is a problem - as long as multiplayer mission designers leave out the Game Master slots. As the manual recommended - leave the Game Master to Single Player missions.

That leaves Ground Force Commander slots and JTAC slots, which are separated by Red and Blue sides. The Force Commander slots can do strategic control while the JTACs can only do vehicle control.

For multiplayer, leaving out the Game Master, limiting Map Views to Allied (like we do now) or trying Fog Of War, and using Servman to monitor for tks, I think all will be OK.

So if you join a multiplayer server and see a Game Master slot listed, know that a Red player can get into a Blue vehicle and vis-a-versa.


---

I made a quick mission for yesterday's CA fest effort and put some Su-25Ts in it. They were only available for the Russian side so they ended up being Red against all of us Blue players. If you want to pair Su-25Ts with Blue then you will need to include Russia with the Blue countries in the Blue Coalition.

Once you create a mission you can't switch the Coalition members.

WC

I think I was being taken a BIT too literally in the first quote. Fact is, all the ground apparatus are simplified and their aircraft we're currently flying are not.

Crew- if you think it's manageable then I'm happy... And yes- servman will help keep folks in line as it as already proven itself uniquely capable.

Sadly Fog of War replaces Allied Vision.

A quick and easy workaround to getting "sniped" from unseen foe 100% of the time was to lessen the sight that the enemy see you at.
Now iirc it's about 8000m drop it down a tad by altering the lua file and it at least lets you get an eyeball on them before you.
Obviously it is up to the individual how much they want to dumb it down but it certainly helped me with the frustration of what the op was saying.
Mick.