upyr1

There is no way we could get an HA Growler, we might be able to get a decent AI one, provided ED improves the EW module.

I was thinking about this after someone posted the request for real-world irregular/terrorist factions. While I see no point in adding Hamas, Isis, or Hezbollah, I do see some logic in having multiple irregular forces, mainly we could have a scenario with two irregular forces fighting. As DCS currently only has two combatants Red and Blue I figure two irregular factions could work. The insurgents, which we already have and the militia the two would be identical except for flags as the entire point is one would be hostile and other friendly irregular forces

The lack of small arms among other assets is one of the issues I have brought up. I am not too bothered by the lack of details however the lack of unit verity in terms of weapons would have a bigger affect on game play

Russia and the US are both viewed as legitimate nation-states by the governments of the world and most people. I don't know what the laws are like in Israel or any other mid-east nation but I would imagine it might anger someone

Dittos.

We have the insurgent faction, which can be identified as anyone you want in the briefing. I'm guessing the reasons behind not naming any real-world group in the mission editor is the fact you're less apt to have someone get angry about Hamas or ISIS in the game, and there really isn't that big of a differnce. I could see some logic behind multiple irregular factions though if you wanted to create a scenario where there are irregulars on both sides. If that were the goal I would clone the insurgents and call them militia. It would avoid the problems of naming real-world groups.

It is planed and it will be awesome.

You aren't the only one who wants the F3H Demon. I'm not going to say not to the Demon butI'd like the F2H as well.

There ain't no way this is going to happen. A full-fidelity module would be possible though.

When I saw this I thought it was a wish for the Royal Phantoms

Field fortifications would be awesome

I know they are quite differnt, as I don't know if HB has plans to do them, I didn't mention the Royal Navy. I don't like the fact that's the case. I want to have naval battles on the Marianas map

I believe the RCAF used the same ranks as the RAF until 1968, so why not give Canada a drop-down menu so way the folks flying the Spitfire and Mozzy will have the proper period ranks

I asked I think if you have the SC you should have a deck crew

Some sort of mouse

The cold war is definitely DCS' greatest weakness in terms of period assets. In the Korean war era, we have basically no Red assets besides the MiG-15. Later we are missing blue assets

In World War II, Korea ships and land based EW were all you had then in Vietnam Red Crown was a call sign given to ships acting as EW

No argument here. I was posting about the lack of ships here and gave a list of possible ships to add. Until ED starts DCS land an Naval modules the best answer is to earmark $x of each module for related assets. When the F-4E comes out I would love it if we saw a Thud and other cold-war assets.

They have always shot down the idea of subscriptions. So I want land and naval modules. The minimum would be my proposed Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops family of modules.

A lot of people are going to scream they don't want a paid asset pack, but that doesn't change the fact ED needs to add more assets. I believe more modules are the solution.

I strongly agree we DCS needs an overhaul of its naval assets. First I would like to see the ship menu change so we can have more drop downs. I think ships should be categorized the following way I'll use the USS Oklahoma City <category> Cruiser <type>light cruiser (CL) <class>Clevland <subclass> <ship>Oklahoma City (CL-91) <fitting> ----------------------------------------------------------- <category> Cruiser <type>Guied missle cruiser <class>Galveston <subclass> <ship>Oklahoma City(CG-5) <fitting> I don't care if the ships in a class use the same model or if they are individually modeled the entire point of grouping them together by class is just for better organization. I believe that implementing a system like that for the ships we have right now would be a good starting point. I would also love to see the option to load different ammo types on a ship

I believe magnitude is working on the Crusader I will have to pop into the A-1 discord and see if they have considered including ships

Any chance we can get a Vietnam era Essex-class carrier?

Considering we are getting an F-8 and A-1 and not the f8u and AD I would expect them to be listed as cgs and not DLs. The fact the Ark Royal was scrap metal at this point is only a problem if you have historical mode on if it's off then it's a non issue. The real issue for DCS is if Heatblur has any British Phantoms planned? Though if anyone has a Buccaner planned I hope they have the Ark Royal.

We have the A-4 Community mod, F-8, and A-1 in the works so the SCB-125 Essex class would work for them. So what are your thoughts on the 1975 redesignation? For example, if we get the Leahy-class or Bellknap-class which were originally designated as DL, would the fittings before 1975 be DLG and the fittings after 1975 be CG? I know the Royal Navy Royal Navy mainly used the Phantom for Air Superiority, and the Buccaneers were the strike platform, but it still doesn't change the fact that if we get a the Royal Phnatoms, I'd love to do a what-if campaign in the Falklands