Other Genres : The Quest for Realistic RTS / Tactics Games

Battery, Fire! (Wargame : Red Dragon)

One slight detour to simulation theme of the site, I am here with an article about strategy side of things (I will occationaly take these pitstops but, they will still be at least mostly realistic, mil-sim themed titles).

Ever since I've heard about the idea, I have been a lover of strategy games. Either turn based, or real time. First C&C and Red Alert games were a joy for me to play, building a varied force, make use of those units, managing both economy and combat etc. Of course, there were a few special mentions I have enjoyed on a Commodore 64, but those aren't exactly the strategy games as we know today. In any case, they weren't military style anyway.

Aside from being the lone soldier, tanker, pilot, captain, etc, we now could command and pit whole units, teams, battalions and armies against each other, including different types of combatants with their respective different abilities. Although I love both ancient / medieval warfare and tactics as well as fantasy and / or science fiction settings, down to earth, realistic warfare has a special place, and obviously, it is the theme of this website, and therefore I will stick to this theme in the article, aside from one sci-fi title, which I believe is important in taking the direction towards more realistic combat, and combat itself rather than economy side of things. So, I will only mention the names of titles like Age of Empires, Warcraft and Total War franchises as honorable mentions, I love them, but, they aren't relevant to this article.

And here is another honorable mention paragraph before I dive to main subject, and this one is about turn base titles. This article will mainly concern real time combat titles. But, it would be amiss to totally forget some of the great tactical games in turn base genre. Likes of Panzer General and Close Combat series for example. Or, even if mainly sci-fi, original UFO : Enemy Unknown had a really good combat / tactics system, that just worked, and IMHO can be considered fairly realistic (certainly more so than modern reboot, although it has it's merits as well). Then there is, of course, Jagged Alliance, I have played JA2 for many long hours, hundreds probably, and did that in  this very year 2015. Then there is also the genre of "Grand Strategy", which is centered on the very macro scale of things, and happen on a world map, like the Hearts of Iron series. Most of these titles, aside from great research, resource management etc, also have wonderful tactical combat. For tactics, they are as good, perhaps sometimes a bit better, than real time titles.

But, real combat happen in real time right? Most of us simulation lovers, always craved for strategy games with some of the realism in simulations included. In many of the earlier, and most of the current mainstream RTS games, main focus is on production / resource gathering / economics rather than combat. Combat usually boiled down to rock / paper / scissors type of unit-counter unit pairs. Damage of any units, from infantry to MBT or even a huge warship, was measured in hitpoints, represented by a healthbar. A unit would fire, and this would usually mean whether it hits or not was through a code check, and not via actual collision detection between projectile and target. This depth was insufficient for many of us.

Then I've noticed the sci-fi title I've mentioned above, Relatively unknown development studio, named Massive Entertainment, came up with "Ground Control" series. The first and only I have seen and played is Ground Control II : Operation Exodus. While it is a sci-fi in distant future, and also includes alien species, it had some special merits that leads me to still include it in this article. That is, the shift of focus from economics to making best of your units in combat. Infanty was in squads rather than individual personal, and were able to fight just about anything even if they were fragile. And they now could take cover and gain stealth by making use of forests and buildings. Armor units, had different armor values for their front, sides and rear parts as it tends to be in real life. And, there was no resource gathering or base building what so ever. As the name implies, you needed to gain control of certain points in map, there now was an incentive for fighting for an objective, rather than for it's sake, or just "turling" in own base. I have really enjoyed GC 2, and hoped for a similar title in a down to earh setting as well. As we progress further, we will get back to Massive Entertainment again.

And after this, comes the first franchise I will look into :
Company of Heroes

Action!

After this seed was sown, it was inevitable such a breed of RTS would come, and first I noticed was "Company of Heroes". I fell in love with it. I was expecting Massive to bring such a title but CoH is developed by Relic. Relic, previously developed acclaimed RTS games in also acclaimed Warhammer franchise, which also was centered more on combat, and had objective capturing mechanism. Company of Heroes was set in WW II, which, then, was something I was almost obsessively interested in (to a smaller degree, I still am). In original release, we had US and Wehrmacht forces, squared off against each other. In order to earn resources, you had to fight and not dig fr it, more objectives you capture on the map, more "manpower", "munitions" and "fuel" you would have. Other than capturing map points for resources, another incentive for keep on fighting, and actually doing good in these skirmishes is the "command points" system. Which, would give access to different abilities, specific to a line of doctrines chosen in the beginning of each game, like calling off map artillery / airstrikes, call in unique and powerful vehicles or infantry squads, paratroopers etc. This added another layer of strategical choice and variety. Besides the buildings (which you could also upgrade to field HQs to get / reinforce units from), infantry and weapon teams could also use walls, fallen trees, destroted vehicles etc as cover too. Infantry and weapon crews were commanded as squads of multiple individuals. And as they are worn down in combat, they would have casualties, which could be reinforced near a base strtucture. Healthbar and hitpoints were still pretty much there, as well as base building. While they live and die by hitpoints, vehicles also had armour feature now. Depending on armour strenth of the aspect that was hit, and strength of the weapon itself, a shot may or may not penetrate, and a non penetrating shot would do no damage or negligable damage at best. What weapons a squad had, at least to a degree, would determine their combat efficiency at different ranges. Some weapons were able to cause infantry to become suppressed and eventually pinned, which would decrease their mobility, offensive, and defensive abilities. Units could be upgraded by different weaponry, and usually for a cost of munitions resource, are able to use special abilities like throwing grenades, firing a panzerfaust etc. There now was artillery and mortar units with a long range, that would provide indirect fire support, over and behind obstacles or cover. And of course, you could, and should, counter-battery against them immediately. Expansions, mainly the first one named "Opposing Fronts" have added additional content like new units, and most importantly, two new armies in form of British Commonwealth for Allies, and Panzer Elite for Axis. They both had substantially different gameplay and unit styles compared to first two factions. I had enormous enjoyment in CoH, it was sort of an opportunity to go and test various tactics and units against each other!

Crossing the bridge...

However, there is a big and substantial flipside of this coin. First off, like mentioned above, some vanilla RTS mechanics were still in place like base building and healthbars. Also, accuracy was still through a background check in code, and how a unit fire was a visual representation of that, especially for infantry. CoH, was, and still is, primarily a game and, RTS game at that. Tactics, yeah they did sorta exist and work. But mainstream RTS formula is still going strong under the visceral WW II looks. Factions and units would get "balanced" back and forth every patch. US grenades were called "nuclear pineapples", wiping out squads like swatting flies, while German grenades would barely take 1-2 soldiers. A GI squad with BARs equipped could almost instantly pin down multiple squads, where as Wehrmacht equivalent Grenadier squad with frickin' 2 MG-42s would not supress not even nearly as well, nor would the actual tripod mounted machine gunners of either faction. For clarity, BAR is a 20 round capacity weapon with a cyclic rate around 400-600 rpm, and MG-24 in it's lightest guise, is fed from a 75 round drum and has a cyclic rate around 1100-1200 rounds... Weaponry, weren't modeled entirely for realism, more for a gameplay balance (which itself would usually remain highly lopsided to one faction or other in various patches). After a while, it very quickly stopped satisfying the hunger for realistic  realtime strategy / tactics games I had, and became just another RTS. CoH series, is a step in journey towards realistic RTS, but not really such games themselves. Now, they are very fun, I enjoy spending time in them every now and then, usually those periods en with a years long hiatus though. They are enjoyable, but just really aren't the realistic tactics game most of us craved.



Although, cronologically the last, since it just got released some months ago, I will also mention Company of Heroes 2 here.

Tiger II in CoH 2

First off, excuse me for CoH 2 screen shots being in low settings, it is fair to say it has the best graphics in all titles mention in article, but it is fairly new, and my 2012 model laptop isn't quite an up to date gaming monster. They are my screenshots, but don't necessarily represent graphics quality of title, and they don't bother me when I'm playing, never been much of a graphics guy :). I had it in my Steam for many a moons now, and just wondered and downloaded a few days ago, mostly for this article's sake. It is, again quite likable and fun, but, as far is combat is concerned, it feel even game-ier than the first one if anything. Still, I am enjoying playing it when I do. However, unlocking / getting rewarded with commander, victory and power up "cards" is a HUGE turn off for me. I love good role playing titles, don't get me wrong. I have spent hundreds of hours in each of Mass Effects, Knights of the Old Republics, Planescaple : Torment, Elder Scrolls Series and various fantasy/sci-fi themed strategy titles too. I still do. I even played a lot of (in my opinion) relatively pointless hack/slash games like Diablo, Titan Quest etc. But pretty please keep that mechanic well away from my combat games, I hate them in real world themed strategy games, I hate them in most FPS games (Call of Duty series ceased to exist for me since Modern Warfare, even though I liked CoD, CoD : UO and CoD 2 a lot) and I certainly totally, completely detest the idea of them in simulation games. Now again, don't get me wrong, surviving untis gaining experience / veteracy in combat is completely ok, and enjoyable, and even realistic to a degree. I believe it is obvious that wasn't what I meant in the above sentences.

CoH2 on my not so hot laptop. DCS and Wargame : Red Dragon Screenshots in article are taken from a much more powerful laptop, but rest, including CoH2 are from my old laptop.

Now, we can look back, around the time Company of Heroes released, what Massive Entertainment also released...
World in Conflict

World in Conflict can sometimes look Gorgeous for a game so old.

One of the most popular settings for any war themed work of fiction, be it a movie, a book or a game, is the climax of Cold War, and what if it ended differently by erupting into a confrontation. World in Conflict and it's mission pack / expansion Soviet Assualt are set in 1989, when collapsing Soviet Union decided to go wild on the Western World, and pour the Red Army through Fulda Gap, and eventually invade USA soil itself. Single player campaign is mildly cinematic, and generally enjoyable, including the Soviet missions. And hey, it ends with Whitesnake - Here I Go Again playing! :)

Over the town

But our focus isn't scripted single player campaigns in this article. Looking at the game itself, it brough back and improved upon concepts Massive had in Ground Control II. Units have some cooldown limited special abilities, usually one offensive, one defensive, as well as their ordinary attacks. Air defence, helicopters, artillery, armor, personal carriers, repair vehicles and infantry all have their roles in the field of battle. They are all efficient, when used correctly. Forests, walls / map objects and buildings can again be utilized by Infantry as cover to make their fragile selves much more resilient. There are 3 factions, USA, NATO, and Soviet Union. However, units are almost exactly identical, and there is bit of rock / paper / scissors approach, even if only a little. Units are split into classes, which all have almost identically performing members for each faction. These are Infatry Squad, Heavy Infantry (rather AT Infantry), Airborne, Light Tank, Medium Tank, Heavy Tank (which are archaic classifications, both Medium and Heavies are MBT types, only mediums are older models), Armored Transport, Amphibious Transport, Troop Transport, Repair Vehicle, Light and Heavy variants for Artillery, Air Defence, Attack Helicopters, and also Scout and Transport helicopters. Artillery and Air Strikes can be called on map, and will take some time to hit the coordinates. Other than that, there are no control over fixed wing aircraft. Speaking of aircraft, the way units are acquired is a bit funny, since they are air dropped from cargo planes, yes, this includes tanks :). In skirmish and multiplayer, you pick a specilization ; Infantry, Armor, Support or Air. This is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it encourages cooperation and seperation of concerns among multiple players, on the other hand, it locks players to specific units with few options for important battlefield tasks.

Because Hinds make everything look twice as cool

Both units and environments, as well as effects, look beautiful, even if a bit cartoonishly colorful and sharp. Arguably, it looks prettier than much later released Wargame series, which it is sometimes compared to, which is quite something! It has fully controllable camera angle / zoom, which not only looks neat and allows for coolest action spectacle and sceenshots, but, in my opinion important in these sort of games. Sometnig that CoH doesn't allow, and Wargame : Airliand battle doesn't exactly either (I do not currently have Red Dragon, so can't comment there). Something fairly small, but worth mentioning. 3D models of vehicles, aircraft and even to a degree the infantry, are quite detailed. Another little thing is, the way helicopters fly looks quite, well... helicopter like :)

Looks nice right? Uuhhh sorry for the field BTW :P.

Overall, WiC is not enterily about realism, but still has elements of realism in how units fight, what weapons they use, what defenses they have, what is the environments impact on those etc. It still seem to have a cult following. Especially for multiplayer. I have played it years ago in 2009, but for past two weeks gave it another go, this time including Soviet Assault. It is fun, interesting and nice, but not sure I would keep playing it. Still it is worth mentioning, and arguably, it is further along the path to realistic RTS than either Company of Heroes games.

It is compared to Wargame series, and, in my rusted memory of it, I also did that when I first played Wargame : Airland Battle. But refreshing my memory of it, I can say they are highly different. And I like Wargame quite a bit better. We can say though, WiC is focusing on closer, unit scale combat, while Wargame is more about larger battes, with more units and, more control of all combat assets, as well as another tier of strategy for actually creating what your armies will be like. We will look at Wargame franchise, but before that...

The definitive real time tactics series...
Men of War

Tiger prowling the streets...

This series is really old actually. It was very obscure though, and arguably, it is still somewhat obscure. Especially in latest versions, it cannot be called exactly simulation like, because there are competitive gameplay balance considerations, at least in unit choice, since it has a competitive multiplayer environment. But it is still the most simulation like of real time strategy games in market.

Beginnings of the series was released all the way back in 2004! Way before other titles I have mention above. I did hear about it, wanted to play it, but never got around to that. It was called "Soldiers: Heroes of World War 2". Developed by Ukrainian studio Best Way, and published by Codemasters. Following titles were published under 1C Games, and some of them also by Ubisoft. Soldiers was followed by Faces of War, and that one by Men of War. It took a dabble at Vietnam by Men of War : Vietnam, which, unfortunately lacked too much content to be taken very seriously beyond singleplayer campaign. From then on, this time single player is almost entirely dropped in favour of multiplayer confrontations, and skirmish bots are only readded recently to latest installment as part of a paid DLC. Iterations after Men of War are, Men of War : Assault Squad and currently, Men of War : Assault Squad 2. Use and efficiency of various assets like artillery, grenades etc were altered between some installments, but they always kept, at least in my opinion, being the most realistic available in their period. Modern day version of series under the name of "Call to Arms", have just recently been released. Single player portions of early titles were behind enemy lines type missions, similar in type and difficulty to Commandos series of 90s. Men of War had both a bit of that, as well as more big armies & tanks facing off each other. Assault Squad titles almost dropped single player, with few and limited options available.

So, what is it, that makes this series that special, and different?

Well multiple things...
To start with the biggest, there is that magic key you press, and then, you have full third person control of the selected unit. As in, moving / turning wherever you want by WSAD + Mouse, switching between available weapons / ammo types, firing where you aim etc. Oh, yes, where you aim. In case I didn't mention, in MoW series, a hit, is a hit, with actual collision detection and/or blast radius mechanics. It even has headshots you know... Tanks and vehicles don't quite depend on a health bar now. A shot either penetrates, or doesn't. Sure, crew inside a tank can get injured or killed from a powerful non penetrating shot, or a high explosive shell disable to crew for a while even if not causing real damage, (oh yes, vehicle need crew in them to work, who, if you want, can disembark) but tank doesn't get a set number of damage to get killed. It is either penetrated, or not. Even then, it can either be a catastropic kill, or a repairable kill. Besides piercing the hull, it is also possible to damage the turret, the gun, tracks or engine. So it is possible to cause mobility kills and firepower kills too. Of course, given time, all those can be repaired by a crew, or anyone with a repair kit. In their inventory. Yes, each individual soldier, and vehicle has their inventory. Ammo is finite, so is fuel. And also grenades, which are very important. You can capture ammo, weapons and fuel from the vanquished, or you can also call in supply trucks. Some vehicles, including trucks, can tow artillery pieces across the battlefield if you need them to. Almost everything you can imagine is possible. Field of vision is, probably the most important thing in whole game (a trait shared in Wargame series too). Therefore, recon is important, so is the stealth. Infantry has standing, crouching and prone stances, and they can be quite stealthy while prone. Tanks have very narrow field of vision, and are more or less blind from most angles. Therefore, they need infantry or other forms of vision providing escorts. Most tank or antitank guns have 3 types of muntion available to them, high explosive for infantry and soft vehicles / buildings / fortifications, armour piercing against tanks, and APCR (armour piercing composite rigid) against tanks at closer ranges for better penetration.

Defending a trench, notice the MG-34 on halftrack is inop since there is no one operating it.

There is no building construction of any sort.

You get a full complement of units ;

You have all sorts of infantry, with various skill and endurance, having weaponry ranging from bolt action rifles and submachineguns, to antitank rocket launchers, machineguns and flamethrowers. Aside from their weapons, they can also carry and lay anti personal or anti tank mines, prepare field defences like barbed wire, dragon's teeth, sandbags etc. They will also have single use weapons like grenades, Panzerfaust anti tank weapons etc. There are also specialized infantry like snipers, which are bane of other infantry. Unlike most other titles we mention, infantry can take cover behind any solid, including trunk of a tree that was just felled by a stray artillery shell, or the carcass of tank your unit has just destroyed, or the sandbags they have just laid. Ability to ender buildings etc remains. Infact, your infantry can enter and man any vehicle or crew served weaponry left astray on the battlefield.


One thing not so realistic is, widespread availability and high effectiveness of anti tank grenades. This seems an conscious choice, to give infantry a chance. In latest versions, it doesn't seem to be as effective as it used to be against tanks.

Indirect artillery starts from mortart teams, and includes rocket artillery (on varying carriages or vehicles, in case of Calliope including a Sherman tank), light and heavy howitzer, and also self propelled howitzers.

Direct fire artillery range from 37mm to highest calibers of anti tank guns, which also have deadly high explosive shells against softer vehicles or infantry. Another form of direct fire artillery is anti aircraft guns. As well as being able to hurt the rare aircraft, these will mow down hordes of infantry and lightly armored vehicles like there's no tomorrow. In case of 88mm Flak 18, it will also mow down tanks, including fairly well protected ones.

Then there is a whole compliment of vehicles from utility trucks and MG armed jeeps / motorcycles to various halftracks, APCs, light, medium, heavy and HEAVY!tanks (yes, that is intentional, and a seperate class, not just double typing of heavy :P). Options are just staggering...

An abandoned, knocked out Tiger, as my airborne are capturing a map point on background. See damage to the tracks which immobilized the tank, and open hatches signifying that it's been abandoned by crew.

While MoW series is more tailored towards micro management and up close and personal tactical combat, it also incorporates logistics. Vehicles run out of fuel, and they need actual human beings inside them to operate them. Tanks need to be manned at driver, gunner, commander, hullgunner etc stations each in order to be efficient. An infantry man, a vehicle, or a crew served weapon, have a finite amount of each types of munition it use in its inventory. You can call in supply trucks, or scour the battlefield's fallen and scavenge for these supplies. Like combat itself, supplying also takes quite a bit of micro management and direct involvement from player.

Urraaaa! One of many available T-34 types : T-34/57, which is the best as far as armor penetration chance goes, but otherwise isn't as good as other variants.

This series, is for those want real up close and personal (even direct control kind of personal if you want) tactics. Brutal, dangerous, and at least fairly realistic tactics. I've had my most tense gaming experiences in MoW games, especially multiplayer. I even remember a game with a friend that we were so cautious, we didn't even see each other in 30 mins of gameplay :). Heavy micromanagement, but hey, this is one of the strong points of franchise : bringing ability to touch every single detail and option to your fingertips!

Though, what if you want a title focused more on the big picture? Big areas, combined arms, air and even naval power included ? Less focused on what indivudual unit does, how it does that, what weapons it have etc, and rather focus on how they operate together on a larger scale? Lets have a look at the...
Wargame Series :

Leopard I as it appear in Wargame : Airland Battle

Targeting a relatively modern timeframe, Wargame games take place at creschendo of Cold War. Though, they have units from early Cold Ward to some 90s units. Roster even includes some WW II relics that remained in service with a few counries during Cold War years. Number of unit types available is staggering, I guess it was around 600 something for Wargame : Airland Battle, and even more for Wargame : Red Dragon. Therefore, you can't just have them all in a RTS game session and choose among them. No, you rather build your "deck", essentially army unit types, to your hearts content. Graphics are nice but not really strikingly good. That is understandable, given the focus of large scale combat on a largish area with large amounts of units. Resource is how many strategic locations you hold and how much you hold them. This title isn't much about economics, and more about combat. Though, success in combat can either mean capture and hold map zones, or kill much without getting killed as much, depending on game mode. Infantry can be hard to spot and can take cover in buildings or hide in forests, but can't cover behind every conceivable object as in MoW or CoH titles. They also don't have stances like crouching or prone, unless part of a specific animation showing supression etc. Infantry units are just that: units comprised of infantry, no control over individual soldier here.

AH-1 Cobra being pretty and deadly at the same time, Wargame : Red Dragon

While units don't have individual inventories like MoW, they have up to 3 possible weapon types, which can be turned on or off by player to preserver or force their use. These have their own ammunition count. Units are subject to morale, and also various little problems that originate from damage or terrain like getting stuck in mud, having their track damaged, stabilization system failing, ammo box getting hit etc. Also, units will use fueal as they move, like they do in MoW. Things hitting other things seem to be a blend of real collision detection and statistical calculation. Small arms and most direct fire guns seems more on statistical side, while artillery shells and aircraft bombs seem a bit more on actual collision detection side.

Eastern block wheeled IFVs with a BTR furher in background. Wargame : Red Dragon

Unit types broken down to several categories, some essential, some supportive. Logistics have command units which capture and hold strategic locations on maps, as well as supply units which carry, well... supplies. Supplying is streamlined in Wargame titles : supply units have a supplying range around them, and any unit within this zone will start consuming supply pool of supplier unit. They will replenish ammunition, fuel and will repair damage with supply they consume. These units come in form of stationary forward operation bases, trucks, or helicopters.

Supplies!

Another category worth mentioning is Recon. In realistic strategy games, line of sight to enemy is of enormous importance. This is emphasised on Wargame series. You need to see what enemy is doing, where they are, what they have etc. Even if you have an army of most powerful units, if they are essentially blind, they will not be able to bring their strengths to bear, and will get slaughtered by artillery, air strikes, or even flanking attacks / ambushes by units who would lose otherwise. Recon can be provided by recon vehicles, recon infantry teams, and recon helicopters. How good a unit is at spotting and how can they see is governed by their "Optics" stat in unit card, best is "Exceptional".

Helos are best for spotting since they are airborne, but they can be exceptionally fragile as well if put anywhere near the harms way. Infantry recon teams are much smaller than normal infantry, and aren't as heavily armed, also they tend not to have as high an Optics value as helos or vehicles. However, they are by far the stealthiest, and they can take cover inside a forest, or a building.

Rest of the units break down to categories like Infantry, Tanks, Support (artillery and air defence mostly), Vehicles (sort of Support units with quirks, or some light tanks, tend to be cheaper units), and Helicopters. Airland battle adds Air and Red Dragon adds Naval. Each category further branches to different units. Infantry squads also arrive in different means of transportation, starting from trucks, to APCs, IFVs with different armament and armor levels and helicopters.

Landing a squad with a Mi-24

Unlike World in Conflict, units of the same class between two armies aren't essentially the same thing reskinned. There are a plethora of stats on a unit card, armour on specific parts, up to 3 different weapons with their own seperate stats (valid target types, ranges specific to those, penetration, accuracy, stabilization, rate of fire, HE or AP power, guidance if available etc).

A column of T-72 tanks speeding on the road. I really like that motion blur effect!

Wargame offers us an ability to use relatively modern combined arms operations, without focusing on individual tactics too hardly. It is in a sense a giant elaborate rock / paper / scissors, as is the reality. It is sort of a blend of traditional RTS with realism, but unlike Company of Heroes or World in Conflict, leans closer to realism, though perhaps not as much as Men of War titles. Though, it can be argued it has some advantages over Men of War as well, at least in it's ability to paint a bigger picture.

Though, if we need absolute focus on realistic tactics, a sim level real time strategy, eschewing any accessibility ? Well... there is...
Graviteam Tactics

Tiger in all it's glory

Being the hardcore realism and indie game lover, this title turned out a bit too much even for myself. Most likely, if I had time to dive into it this would change and I would enjoy it a lot. But with my busy schedule, I can't do it justice.

This title has a deployment stage before battle stage, and there are loads of commands that can be issued to various unit types. Armies, which arrive from various DLC packs, range from WW II to about 70s. 3D models for vehicles are gorgeously done and very realistic, however terrain doesn't look as striking.

A demanding title, that is a study, but can be daunting before one can enjoy, even if you are a more hard core realism gamer. I hope to write more about this particular title if / when I can do it justice.


Aaaaandd... a final honorable mention :
DCS : Combined Arms

Surprise surprise... People tend to see this module more as a ground vehicle sim-lite but, I think it's main intention, and for me main value, is that it can add dynamism and some human strategic control to DCS missions. Commanding ground units, even ships, over the F10 map to whereever you want can add a lot to a mission, and I hope this title will improve more in this direction, which can add a lot more to DCS that most people realize, in my opinion at least.

Regards and safe virtual operations to my readers / fellow gamers :).