Kaktus29

again.. please do understand ED themselves said their "research of customer behaviour" points to west.. so this has nothing to do with putin and restrictive info.. which is laughable argument when trying to argue you can't simulate DCS Su-27 from the 80's )) lol.. its not like we are talking about Su-34, or Tu-160, .. we are talking about Su-27 the original-who barely had a radar that worked.. or Mig-29 the original same thing.. there is more than enough info of this pre-historic planes and obsolete technologies.. today russia employs AESA and PESA radars, not antenna crap that were used in the 70's and 80's.. but people like you try to hide behind this ugly fact that ED has "switched" and is doing west planes only.. )lol.. and trying to hide this as its putins fault )) .. lol... so NATO is giving info no problem, but here..well, putin, .. its all about putin see.. what's next.. putin is restricting info on Mig-23? .. yup, top secret plane with top secret radar.. how about Mig-15? i'm afraid russia has too secret files, .. ED will not be able to do even Il-2 .. )) we all know whats happening here, and its Simulation is changing into Western pleasure trick--where you fly F-22 and blow up Mig-15 in iran.. )) ..woow, super realistic.. yeah, and challenging too.. so hard and difficult.. but then again, its all putins fault ))

your arguments do not hold under scrutiny.. you say iran is preferred because its in the news?)) what? .. i am talking about a simulation which is the most enjoyable when its challenging ..would you agree? .. so, how can Iran be preferred than EU ?)) And i didn't say Russia vs. West war.. if you read my "A new theater" thread you would know i was talking about more different scenario-no matter how unlikely it would be much more challenging than NATO vs. some outnumbered, outgunned, outsanctioned nation .. While mentioning iran why not attack the arctic and those pesky polar bears.. yup, .. you need your F-22 to kill those baby seals and bears and fish )) .. and again, this "myth" that they can't do russian jets because of lack of info ?)) so, a russian company can get US info but not russian one? EVEN when the model of the russian plane is like 50 yrs old? The orginal Su-27 is pretty much a relic when compared to the Su-30 etc.. we are talking about the original Su-27 in the ED simulations.. which means pre-historic radar that is WORSE than the F-15 A-model(that is A model, not C but A).. If ED concentrates only on US planes than as i said, no problem, just please remove the russians one completely.. no need to be used as propaganda reasons and show them as drones.. okei? .. And more than anything ED has shot themselves in the foot by doing this, in China they have at least 20 million people market who would be interested IF Eastern planes-mostly russians since they have russian planes as their core-would be simulated.. and that is ONE BIG STEADY income for the company.. but yeah.. if ED thinks USD is better than Yuan's.. let me see what happens..and how long will they make it doing this.. my bet is, a competitor will emerge in future, mostly from China or Russia and will concentrate on the East.. and ED will miss the boat.. since ED will have DCS F-15,F-16,A-7,A-8,F-18,F-22 ..oh and lets not forget ALSO Mig-21Biz )) lol.. which they are not even doing but a 3rd party is.. while the competitor will rightfully concentrate on Eastern ones and therefore be much more likely to be used by chinese than flying as an f-16,f-18 etc.. i'm not a russian but to see this russian company doing this kind of crap is just sad.. i can't imagine a usa company doing nothing but russian jets )) lol.. to all the fans of US of course this is amazing.. you get to blow up mig drones and scream hell yeah-as if you know what your doing.. to me that is not simulation.. is BF3 with better simulated ailerons and landing gear etc.. but nothing more than that.. ED has shown some serious lack of strategic sight.. it will cost them in the future ..

i'm starting to feel that maybe ED is getting afraid of doing what they should-and that is devoting attention to russian planes.. as they did from the start.. but of course money talks..the market is just too big in the west and western customers would rather fly a western plane and shoot down eastern ones.. thats the reality ..so, if they choose to follow up with this, i don't think we will be seeing any russian high fidelity fighter any time yet.. most probably the whole thing degenerates into Jane's fighter collection with the big change of DCS making better planes but still most of them will be western ones.. i tried to gauge this aspect with "new theater" question threat..and most would rather fight in "iraq,iran" theater than EU )) lol.. this shows you what customers expect.. easy battles between a superior force and a defeated one .. if the russian company does this than, so be it.. sad, missing the chance to be something different than most generic western military simulations but yeah.. thats the reality in the end..

oh very very nice.. i like that.. of course, if radars get the complex simulation than all of that is much more possible to do and also make things interesting since its not really so easy as pressing a button for R-radar and locking and firing )) .. but bunch of loosing the contact and feeling the pressure and panicking when you try to re-acquire the contact before they kill you) .. but yeah, flanking is very good and efficient.. i read about Su-27 and the methodology the Soviets would use them.. they were meant to fly very low, and waiting for either AWACS data links to show them where the enemy is, or ambushing strike packages or CAPs as they show their tails to the InfraRed seeker head of Su-27 .. after that you can sneak up to them very easily..and since its infra tracking and most of the time you are tracking their six all you need to do is get at least 10nm close and firing the infrared version of the Alamo with Extended range(that is needed to actually catch up with the enemy that is flying away and not closing the range)..that is the precise reason why those infra-red missiles of alamo had sooo much range.. for this occasion.. cuz you need at least 100 km range of the missile if you want to close the gap from a running away fighter just 12nm away from you.. so all in all, very good tactic .. there were plans to make all the flanker family also have the backward radar for this precise occasions if the roles would be changed.. like you go into strike package behind enemy line.. you see a CAP getting at you.. you fly home but at an angle.. that CAP is closing..but since the CAP is from 8-4 o'clock behind you he must close the range immensly to be able to hunt you down and kill you (like 12-14nm and with a very long range missile at that!)..while arming the sukhois with backward firing missile and radar that would acquire the enemy that is chasing you, you basically can K.O. him with one shot..since your missile will be going full head-on aspect to his heading and speed )) ..if nothing else, you make his chase impossible and you brake away free to go home..

I have checked many threads, so if i have failed to notice the one i'm starting here please disregard my post/thread.. I would like to have an intelligent debate about how to defeat an enemy aircraft in single fight, double, team effort whatever ..and for ALL sides please.. F15,Su-27 etc.. what are your tactics, opinions, etc.. what is the strength of each plane or just your approach to defeating the enemy.. using ground as clutter for the radar, flying on multiple different altitude with your wingman to "sneak" a wingman or two to the WVR combat .. or what?.. I see many heated discussions on the forum that i think are the result of feeling of injustice being done to one plane or giving unfair advantage to the other.. combine this with bunch of children playing and bragging and you have yourself a war in the forum )) lol.. So, lets have a discussion about DCS flight and weapons, and planes, etc.. (okei, well, not really DCS Su-27 since it doesn't exist or F-15) but you get my point.. I put this on the DCS because its important to be here, since in the future we will have(hopefully US and Russian counterpart fighters) duking it out.. so don't drag in the oh well, if the russians have su-35 than we have f-22, and then if usa has f-22 we have nukes, and oh wtf already)) .. this is a game, pc simulation which will have constraints like F-15 on one side and Su-27 on the other.. IF simulated at least 75% i think it would be great, fun, and also interesting in duel matches.. especially if you give some freedom in MP games(like, have a SAM positions that are NOT known in the area to the enemy, and then use this if you feel you are outmatched to bring the enemy into a trap+give some kind of a bonus to fulfilling the mission like as a CAP or Escort your job is cleaning the skies..meaning if you run to SAM cover you leave the skies to the enemy which means deducting points(for every second you are out of the CAP area you loose e.g. 0.5 points or whatever) ..same goes for the attacker, if he follows you he risks being blown by SAM.. but if he turns back, the enemy turns right back on him so now he's the one running.. more real life time awkward situations if you will.. Anyway, your tactics please.. and nothing more... I personally fly with my friend, together in all kind of formations..of course vs. the computer AI we dominate, even outnumbered 4:1.. that is as of FC2 ... i don't know about the newest versions.. Flying as Su-27 and using our many missiles as intended, of bringing the enemy in a bad position from as far as possible.. the tactic is simply firing a missile to force the enemy to ACT, either retreats(bleeds airspeed,fuel,and breaks from formation) and than of course he returns back after the missile fails to hit, but before that happens i fire another one, to keep him fighting, evading and not being in position to dominate me or be in a firing position..having many missiles my plan is simply to use up to 50% of the missiles just to make him turn away from me, after that its basically a death sentence for him if he wanders back into a firing position cuz all this time he was evading i got closer and closer (first missile i rip off at 20nm, than 17nm, 14nm, 12nm is usually a death sentence already but only if he goes back towards me, if keeps running and showing me his six its basically over for my chances to get him, but also his chances of getting me)-which brings us to the MP points game of claiming victory IF you manage to clean the skies regardless if you actually shot anything down-which is what most CAP missions end up being.. bunch of fuel calculating, range establishing zone tricking games.. the goal is denying the enemy the airspace.. most of the time just firing a simple missile at far range to give a Strike package planes a warning is a success-meaning they drop their heavy ordnance of bombs,AG missiles, to do successful evasive manoeuvres .. and by that success has been achieved, AG mission of the enemy has been disrupted.. etc... so, this was my tactic-as good or bad as it may be.. you are free to share your tactics.. that you employ either in single formation or double, package etc..

i agree, when engines are on fire usually it means your power generation is OFF, meaning FCS is invalid, you can't do shit.. all you can do is eject-if you are lucky that is.. in RL when a jet gets hit pilots don't think about doing damage control as some said-that is when plane is hit and is on FIRE! and spinning) but they eject ASAP.. i remember the confession of that F-16 pilot who ejected during the 1995 agression over R. Srpska and got hit by a SAM.. i didn't see in his confession thinking "okei, let me just turn around and fire one of those HARM missiles to get that SAM who is targeting me))lol.. you just eject, simple as that.. actually in the very first flanker they simulated really nicely..if you got hit by a missile you automatically saw your dude eject .. it's more realistic than the spinning kamikazo spewing fire and raining death even though in his death spiral )) lol.. But about RL and simulation, of course we are very far away.. as some have mentioned, you have integrated AD systems, GAI's, cruise missiles fired in volley to knock off the airfields so in effect grounding even the most amazing F-22's .. so in real war if it ever happened we actually don't know what would happen, all that has happened so far were controlled massacres ..not really wars.. i mean US vs. Iraq? or Libya?..seriously?)) that passes for war today? .. c'mon.. get serious. As Danilop said..in RL nukes would start flying very soon, .. that is the reason why NATO chickened out in Georgia.. Russia was pushed against the wall, and if USN would intervene Russia couldn't back off, would have to use nukes-tactical to knock off the USN, after a loss of a US aircraft carrier and a public relations disaster of explaining to american voters how russians sank an aircraft carrier and killed over 5000 sailors there would be a "retaliation" with tomahawks-nuke armed and would hit Russian military bases, then russia retaliates and hits US bases in Romania, Germany, UK, ..then US ,..etc etc.. get it? ..it get out of control very fast.. all this talk about some stupid radar and missile of AMRAAM and ER is childish.. it matters nothing in RL.. in RL things would escalate and before you could say "phuck" you would be on your way to meet your maker )) lol..

yes, i agree about which is more probable ..but not also interesting.. i mean, who would like to fly in the potential iranian conflict? .. if you are american you can do all the damage by pressing buttons and launching tomahawks, and if you are iranian you have to hope that enemy invades you by infantry so you could get closer enough to kill something .. on the other hand, Germany vs. France,UK, USA + Russia, China afterwards joining Germany? ..get out of here.. that would be interesting as hell, not to mention very hard to play, with all the sophisticated missiles and weapons aiming to destroy you... i'm bored by this small conflicts and small wars that are more or less "a controlled slaughter houses" .. Give us EU theater ))

where would you like the new theater to be? apart from Georgia and Crimea, where would you like it for a good high intensive war of equal strong opponents? I am thinking of the European theater .. in the future, something like 2020, .. with Europe on the brink, .. tensions going up, and all kind of alliances set in motion, Germany goes solo, goes out of EU, USA threatens economic blockade and sanctions against this unilateral move by Germany, Italy joins Germany, .. on the other hand UK, France and US join together to impose the economic blockade (which is all to easy to implement because of US Navy which is too huge to be countered by anyone) .. Germany threatens WAR if blockade not lifted since the blockade is pretty much a war declaration on its own, and their trade with China is suffering, and even supplies with oil and gas from Russia being threatened to be cut off by Poland who uses this opportunity to gain prestige in the potential victory over Germany and joining the US axis .. Russia and China becoming sympathetic to Germany and like to help but for the moment they are just bystanders.. And then all breaks loose, with one plane getting shot while spying above Germany, Germans go into action against France, Poland, .. cruise missiles flying all over the place, Leopards, Leclercs and all kind of puma's animals are set loose .. After US lands with expeditionary forces in France, at this time Russia joins the fray, together with China giving the troops needed to push the opposing forces to Germany into submission and end the resistance in Europe.. Why do i like this theater so much? because for one, its much more interesting fighting in target rich environment.. and Europe has sooo much stuff to blow up)) lol.. also, it has it all, the Sea to do navy stuff, the coast to do Carrier ops and Land bases efforts to kill of the carrier groups..and the atlantic navy war if China and Germany and Russia try some small scale incursions with subs and their navy to engage the US.. It would be a much bigger project than this "campaigns" fought in Georgia theater in DCS, ..or Crimea that never felt like a real war, more of a skirmish here and there.. What do you guys think? What theater would you prefer?)(and of course the maps would be different)) can you imagine dropping bombs in modern Frankfurt, or Paris, .. or that bloody leaning Pisa Tower in Italy))) ) .. Other theaters don't appeal to me since its just desert and nothing .. Afghanistan, Iraq, .. Libya, .. also, nobody can challenge the attacker in those conditions(Russia, China, maybe even Germany, .. ) since there are no naval capabilities to do something like that?..

would it be useful to have a fuel system where you put AI plane on route to a mission and actually so far we don't know how much fuel is the plane going to have after it finishes all waypoints and mission... would it be nice to be able to see "range" of the plane considering its fuel load and how it affects it when we put the plane on higher altitude or lower..by increasing the range and lowering it respectively ... Maybe there is no use since missions last 1 hour tops.. by if we get some sort of campaign going on, and try to cover most of airspace for as longest time possible than this should come useful.. not to mention how different it would feel to use short range fighters vs. long range-who can stay in air for much longer time.. and cover greater distance..

Arty has been the most overlooked asset during the DCS revolution or am i wrong? From what i know Smerch and other sophisticated artillery use all kind of complicated warheads that deal with all kind of damage, from cluster munition for scattered personal, to anti-tank bomblets for destruction of tank formation and smerch has even this little cute baby drone it develops after the rocket is launched so it can view the area directly and fire the salvo of rockets more effectively even without any help from outside-JSTAR, Recon etc.. to me all this complexity makes the game devs life really difficult since if they make something just slightly wrong the whole thing could be so unbalanced i can already see people pissing off and loosing nerves cuz of that.. Can you imagine, you are planning everything from planes, ammunition, which air base to capture, from which to take off etc.. and then you miss this Smerch who is hidding in the woods, he fires this little drone over suspected area where air recon noticed something..and than you all armour column goes fishing crabs.. the whole invasion falls apart and you can't really find that arty where it is...so you are at danger of loosing even more.. of course in real life, you can have all kinds of other units who have radars to detect incoming shells, rockets so you can counter arty fire but again, more units to simulate, more units to create.. the whole battlefield is in reality sooo complex its.. WTF scenario for the devs))) poor guys, they didn't ask for this))) Devs remind me on Adam Jensen, the fictional character in the new first-shooter game Deus Ex .. his moto was: "I didn't ask for this" ))) and booy he was right, i mean devs are right)))

@nerdwing ..glad to be of service and amusment)) .. anyway, .. yeah number number, ..how to populate 32 players in one game? ..well, is it really necessary? .. can't we play with 4-4 and have open/invite option .. all you really need with Combined Arms is 1 commander who will use AWACS info and give orders to Planes(AI or human) and guide the whole operation, also would be able to give orders to tanks, sam's(like where to go, use active sensors, don't use active s. , use passive instead etc.. ..and then if you want a player who is flying toward enemy airfield he is about to assault but it will take time-(like 20 minutes) he can for that time being jump to a tank or a sam and AI can take his plane over ..).. and you can have your fun there with the tank or if you will play the tank because you will be better-being smarter than AI and all that.. The commander could say .. look guys, we have problems with ground forces, they are merging, ..do we have anybody flying who is too far away and is doing nothing? ..if so, "jump" into the SAM or Tank units and do your thing.. help us win this one! ))

ooopss.. mistaken THAAD for THEL )) .. i meant THEL .. But what i said is still true, .. against manoeuvring targets THAAD is still a dud..

dude didn't you see the moderator?) remain on topic!)) but to answer and reply in quick fashion.. THAAD is a dud, energy hungry and as such not practical, same was with all those fancy toys of Micro-wave weapons.. a regular missile and precise radar will do the trick and even that barely.. I guess i was reading wrong US data about miserable PAC-2 performance in Israel during the first gulf war-yes they were send from US to Israel to protect them, it was the only way as usa said to prevent Israel attacking Iraq on its own because of retaliation.. anyway, after the congress mumbo-jumbo BS analyst showed PAC to be incapable of defending against short range balistic missiles-iraqi scuds remember were a hybrid nonsense made out of spare parts and cannot compare with a real system like Tochka and ISkander that are manoeuvring in mid air as they approach the target-making interception an impossibility.. About PAC-3, .. am, as far as FACTS are concerned the old-new S-300 are better than PAC-3 by a ratio of 1.5 if not more.. and with S-400 coming online noo.. i don't think so.. PAC can pack it.. it can't compete even it can't try to compete with the S-300-400 series.. Which is only normal, US priority was always agression and forward projection of military force not DEFENCE which Russia is leading in that field of technology-SAMs, etc.. USA doesn't bother with AD anyway..

"man I felt like a dentist trying to pull teeth with out Novocain.." sometimes just stating an obvious question can derail some people off i guess)) .. It is weird though, all this time and no real ground capable radar.. with all the advances they made in all aspects of simulations ..its a shame..but hopefully it will come back-back you say?..yes, it was there in a weird morphed kinda way.. I remember playing the first Su-27 Flanker back when it came out in 1996 or was it 1997 .. woow, graphics were really bad even for that time, but the atmosphere was increadible..and the S-300 they simulated was the improved version with extended range)) so it covered all of the crimea)) .. the only way you could survive is hugging terrain but that got you killed by Sting operation people waiting in the valleys)) Anyway, in that first game of their they simulated a ground well, naval ground radar..so you could locate ships and fire Kh-35 .. but it wasn't historically correct thing to do since the regular Su-27 does not have Air-to-ground capability.. only the Su-30 versions and maybe the new Su-27SM and whatnot versions..

yes, but for a human to fly sead you need a plane to do this.. so far i don't know there is a possibility to use other planes other then Su-25T to do some SEAD.. the reason why Dynamic Eagle hasn't go deeply into SEAD is for the reason you need to then do a complete deep redesign of SAMs.. and tactics, and all kinds of trick in the back to make the system some what realistic.. maybe with the advent of SAM operated by humans we shall see new planes who will have SEAD abilitiy-like F-16, F-15, F-18 .. and on the russian side they also need to present some more planes to do some more complex missions apart from bombing stuff.. like Su-30 would be a dream multi-tasking multi-role plane.. but so far, i'm really happy with the developments .. really wish the devs all the luck in this one.. hope i get my comp in order before this all comes out))

back on track.. New SAM simulations need to be coupled with new SEAD element.. so far we have SEAD that is AI and you have to mission edit what SAM he is going to destroy in advance.. which is silly to say the least.. I haven't played the A-10C so i don't know maybe they changed it.. Would like to either see improved AI here, where you can say from waypoint 3 till 9 you are on SEAD mission meaning if you encounter SAM you well, hope survive the initial SAM surprise and not jettison your HARM missiles) .. and then attack it... And AI on SAMs where they would use some data-sharing info so if AWACS or EW is tracking you some SAMs could see that picture so they could use this to strategize their surprise on you-whether attacking you ACTIVE style or passive-depending on your altitude.. Has anyone played or know the game Naval War:Arctic Circle.. its done by some devs and published by Paradox who are great at strategy/tactical games.. What i want to say is, they made a good platform from which to manage and direct and give orders to ships and so on.. One option the MP could be played is on a strategic/tactical sense completely.. like there is an announcement that MP will be played, Red team will have 5 billion of USD to spend on what they want as they assemble their military and Blue as well.. Who is attacker or defender could be purely by chance-or agreed upon. And then the game starts.. you don't need to have all human machines when the game starts.. since it will not be needed.. You will need at least 2 commanders who will be on opposing sides. After that, people can join in (either randomly or previously agreed because they are a part of the team-contract stuff i was talking in previous posts).. and slowly but surely fill in the ranks. So, how do we prevent idiots from blowing stuff up that wasn't ordered to?.. Like a commander will get AWACS info of a strike package infiltrating into home base and wants to re-direct a CAP to this position.. but the CAP player decides to rather hunt for some frogfoot meat in some dead-end alley).. well, in the end of the game all the participants would give their VOTES, .. and vote everybody apart from themself of how they saw other people following orders or just agreeing on their technical merits in the fighting.. And if somebody did foolish things such a person would get a bad rep.. and other teams would avoid using such individual for their team.. You could see the progress of somebody getting bad rep or good rep on the MP servers.. And to avoid abusing the system every person who uses the DCS should use his own personal NICK or CODE that would be given when you buy DCS CA package.. What do you think guys? ..

"History tells us that a determined air force can take on a SAM barrier and defeat it, actually, without numerical superiority." such as?... "Ok cool, so where's your SAM now? You say Iskander, I say PAC-3/THAAD." ))) ask the israelis who used patriots .. THAAD is a turd .. cancelled project.. too cumber-stone to use effectively in combat conditions.. Interceptions of Hamas fire-crackers using top of the shelf Drome or whatever they call this US taxpayer gift is a joke.. a normal SALVO that a division would fire in a war makes the system look as money laundering scheme )) "Actually in Yom Kippur the IAF figured out how to perform SEAD better. It had nothing to do with running out of ammo. I find it amusing how you want to claim that this or that 'don't count'. Wake up. There's no such thing as a fantasy 'equal battlefield'." again, . example?? .. Israelis defeted the system by ramming planes at it)) lol.. egyptians ran out of ammo) .. thats a fact. you sir.. i am still waiting for the magic tactic you said they used) .. the destruction of egyptian sams were made by soldiers on the ground not planes..check your facts.. "Russia should know better than to hand over S-300's to either Syria or Iran. In any case, I don't see why you're bringing that up since according to your rethoric it would be some downgraded export version anyway, so no wonder if it got defeated by ECM, ARMs, etc ... right? The merkava did fine. I see you like talking about things you don't actually understand. That battle was a perfect example of poor tactics executed on the part of the Istaelis. It had nothing to do with the performance of the Merkava, which actually did quite well considering the circumstances." S-300 being less effective because its export oriented only makes US look even weaker.. if its a system that is downgraded.. wtf are you so afraid of)) LOL.. do a reality check, a BUK system is a danger for US )) Merkaa did fine? it was all about tactic.. am, .. sir i speak of anti-tank weapon that shreded the tanks.. and that it do very well.. and proved western technology and armor and superiority that comes with it as a mirage.. Those tanks were sliced like a hot knife through butter.-- maybe you wish i send you israeli confession of what i write?.. so far unfortunatelly you haven't send me any facts that show me otherwise.. hitting SA-2 who is low on ammo in a country that has 4 such system with an Air Force that number 1000 planes is not a proof of superiority of planes vs. SAMs )) Ask a general what they feel about sam weapons.. Ask Clark Wesley about how fearful they were orcheastrating attack on yugoslavia and that was a country under economic sanctions for 10 years and systems old 30 years)) .. And even then, NATO managed to destroy civilian infrastracture, .. while the Serbian ground force was left unscratched .. i remember how NATO officials said they watched in horror and amazement when after 3 months of brutal bombing day in day out how serbian armour kept rolling from kosovo one tank after another)) .. Don't want to insult you or anything, but your false belief in AF superiority is proven to be false..

am, well, you are proposing elements such as ARMs etc.. in that case things can always escalete.. i said balanced force.. if u use a weapon that can't be countered just by SAM they yes you are in a position of vulnerability.. what i tried to say is AF is very if not much more vulnerable to missile squadrons and battalions and ground forces than people realise.. as i said, historically it has been proven that you can only win as an attacker when you outnumber the enemy.. always in history it has been like this.. so if you put a 1 billion budget for the attacker and 1 billion budget on the defender i still say with 100% conviction the attacker is going to see those planes either blown up or not take of entirely.. Tochka, Iskander missiled can neutralize airfields very easily, .. and that mr. is how you defeat enemy air without a single aircraft .. why the awacs and fighting in air when you just disable the airfield.. those missile have range of 500 km, but that can be upgraded easily to 2000 km.. US has for this particular problem pressured russia into signing lots of agreements on limiting the range of tactical weapons such as iskander etc.. after the AF are damaged and in repair-mode there is no flying air force.. and what remains is the good old fashion ground banging tank war.. with an equal opponent (if they own Iskander i can imagine they own modern tanks .. ) .. SAM does not equal a speed bump, prove me with facts where this has been so, .. and no, having 200 planes fighting an enemy with 20 planes does not count.. just as Israeli 100 F-15 don't count vs. Syrian Mig-23 who have a radar range of a 20 km and ONLY after being re-directed by EW .. a huuuuge disadvantege .. The Yom Kipur war pretty much decimated the israeli air force until egyptians ran out of ammo and USSR outweaseld to re-supply them on the other hand US kept pumping fresh planes to the israelis and they destroyed the systems with their ground force )) .. If SAM would be such a speed bump US would not be whining like a little bitch every time Russia tries to sell S-300, forget S-300, tunguska to iran or syria.. talk about low confidence about AF superiority))) Israelis had the same complex of self delusion about their Merkava tanks.. they are invincible they said.. and then Hezbolah used the Syrian bought russian anti tank system and well.. tanks blew up like they had no armor at all.. Western superiority comes at fighting countries who are 40 yrs lagging in technology, 40 years lagging in economy, and in times of civil war.. The only problem with AD is its too static, not dynamic enough if you wanna go on the offensive and start hitting the enemy at home.. but with some ingenuity even that can happen by using 2 pronged attack, jumping like a frog, opening umbrella blitzing with tank divisions and opening the second umbrella while the first pack up and progresses forward..

good points.. .. its true, there are alternatives of how to ambush SAMs in their own game, .. but so far in real life that has happened ONLY in a un-balanced scenario where attacker greatly outnumbered the defender-Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.. We have never seen equal amount of planes on each side and SAMs etc.. I was referring to this equation, IF you have equal size of force it is practically next to impossible to achieve any worthwhile and meaningful air superiority after which you can utilize other elements of air power. Flying at 20000 feet all the time so you FORCE the SAM to turn radars instead of using passive systems(optic, IIR, etc..) is also bad for you, since you can't be as accurate as you would want to.. also you would be much more visible to long range detection by EW that are far away from the front and by that giving away your position that is later transmitted by radio or other way to other SAM and GAI's waiting to spring the trap.. I agree, SAM is defensive weapon, and in that it does its job wonderfully.. If we play MP i guess it will be Blue Team vs. Red Team, .. Red for instance needs to attack, Blue needs to defend, .. they both have the same amount of "money" to spend as they set up their armies(so Red team could opt for more planes and less SAMs and Blue could opt for more SAMs or more tanks or whatever.. its up to strategy..but the amount of money would be equal..and in that it would make it a challenge.. i'm afraid if the conditions would be as such it would be impossible for the attacker to ever win as historically i have said an attacker always needs at least a 2:1 ration of balance of force in order to overcome a same-technology opponent... sometimes its closer to 3:1 or more that you need.. But that would be tested on the field and proper ratios would be used to make the MP fun and not impossible for the defender or attacker).. Then we can do MPs that would test your skills, that is playing AGAINST odds, .trying to overcome enemy who has twice the amount of "money" to spent on him as you play as a defender, or 4 times, .. or try to attack but only having equal amount of money or even less.. this missions would be for professionals who would use every trick in the book to surprise an overwhelming enemy.. would be nice to see such kamikaze MP as well.. but most of the time i would enjoy a real balanced MP (that means two opponents who are equally "rich" or "poor" for that matter.. ).. p.s.:AD is not just SAMs its a component of SAMs and AF, .. together i still believe they can easily slow down and practically immobilize the enemy air.. about those surprises, remember there is no warning when you are being hit by IR seeking missile (altough lately there has been developments to improve this by laser-range warnings on planes-most planes are not equipped with this and will be only in the future) .. and flying high above 20.000 feet or even more makes you a target for S-300 miles away.. but thankfully S-300 isn't really simulated in the DCS and LOMAC series because if it would be properly simulated most Virtual pilots would stop flying.. the thing would cover all of the Crimea with its range.. and if one would use brains with operating the system-using other detection rather than its own(friendly CAP, AWACS, EW, etc.. for initial guidance before active goes online in the missile after it zooms to 20km) it would be next to impossible to play in the DCS world.. So invader would have an option of being blown by passive systems as he flies hugging the ground to avoid radar detection, or blown by making himself a target at 30.000 feet.. plus there is an Air force out there to get you as well... ufff... there is no way an attack force can achieve its objects with 2:1 ration, .. i smell 4 or more :1 ratio needed to have a 50% chance of success..

UCAVs and Stealth illusions.. There is no such thing as we will send stealth and all of a sudden you will kill of the SAMs)) Just imagine a strategy of defence.. you know an attacker needs to overcome your defence, the defence must be visible, ALWAYS visible in order to destroy it.. Remember Yugoslavia '99.. how many SAMs were destroyed? how many tanks? In 3 months of constant bombing NATO achieved 13 killed tanks (out of 500!) .. Serbs hid them well, their only problem was not being armed with modern SAMs.. Why do you assume stealth UCAVS won't be shot down with enemy Air Superiority missions? Yes, but in this case we can send air fighter to protect the UAV right?.. Again, there is no proof that the fighters won't get into SAMs area.. this could be very good rehearsed trap, .. UCAV searches for SAM that is hidden beyond any way of finding him(if you think thats impossible you know nothing of camoflaouge).. which means air patrols are sent to hit this bug, this is countered by the fighter screen thats protecting this UAV which btw is stupid since then you have a situation where UAV which is disposable-supposedly is protected by a real human pilot in a fighter jet))) whats the effin deal of sending UAV then, just send a normal SEAD mission with real pilots why don't ya)) Someone said Once SAM opens fire its over for him..)) says who?..why?.. Lets say a pack of A-10s are flying.. 4 of them.. in formation... willingly or not they fly into a nest.. thats it, if that happens they are dead.. there is no "ohhh that SAM is going to get it.. by whom.. they are all dead in a matter of seconds.. Yes, you can re-direct some other sortie from somewhere else in the vicinity of destroyed planes..but that won't do anything since you don't know the exact location.. 40 sq. miles or radius of 20 miles or similair is too big for you to redirect your imaging device to search.. Basically hitting sams is very hard to achieve, you need an opponent who does not have patientce and who will turn their radars on all the time.. also remember, SAMs use fake transponders all over the place.. and there are fake blow up sam's that emit heat, look exactly the same, emit frequency and reflect same radar cross section as the real thing.. and they cost 2000 USD)) .. you get 200 of those hidden in a sloppy manner-so they can after all be found to those who are seeking)) and really hide the real deals as they are ambushing the SEAD mission and you have yourself a disaster.. remember its all economics..if the SAM missile destroys 5 planes it won.. the system costs much less than 5 full armed fighter planes ..unless your doing it with Fishbed of course..then we are open for discussion.. NATO got frustrated with serbs preciously because of that, they kept those pre-historic sams "SA-2")) shut and used it only when it was a clear-cut opportunity . so NATO devised a plan.. they hit civilian targets in order to get the enemy to respond by trying to protect those civilian targets.. it was the same tactic that nazis used when they got hit with guerilla fighting style... you can't hit what you can't see, so they attacked civilian villages in order to get partisans out of the woods and into the plains so they could fight them on open.. but partizans knew they cannot win in open combat, so nazis were left with killing civil targets.. SAM's is not meant to kill you, but unable you to function with ease.. NATO did not fly below 20000 feet for the whole duration of the campaign for that precise reason. And by that forced it to be less accurate and less effective. If you couple this with modern SAM and tactics and somewhat useful Air force of the defender and to tell you the truth i can't see the enemy attacker surviving for too long. Remember you have limited number of planes, you loose 20 of them thats it.. they are gone, ..one SAM can take out 2-4 planes easy if they are in a kill zone, even if he gets killed later its economic win-win, a plane costs more than the system like tunguska so you can't really claim victory if you destroy SA-15 after he downes a plane -a single plane and its already a failure of the mission.. just to give you a glimpse of how you can hide SAMs especially small ones like SA-15, tunguska types etc.. you drive into a house.. thats it.. the enemy can look with their drones all they want, they will see a perfect village from the top and that it.. after confirmation of enemy air in vicinity it can peak out to take a look, make a dump and blow some planes out.. and go back.. BTW, UAVs in real life where there is no air superiority are useless.. This works when your enemy has no air force, no armor, no navy, no SAMs, .. basically is in slippers and using 50 years old assault rifle. As a said before, .. too many people actually believe SAMs are nothing but a bump in the road.. In reality they are pretty much the only thing that can make all this air-mumbo-jambo superiority ends looking like a premature ejaculation .. The reason US Air force and US politicians starts pulling their hair and start begging Russia or threatening to stop exporting S-300 to whichever country US will liberate next is for this precise reason.. Its a game changer.. In Vietnam US lost sooo many B-52 bombers and Vietnamis were using old SA-2 from the 50's not 60's or late 60's that USSR had.. In real life, if SAM cannot be avoided and destroyed easily because of enemy resiliance and patience .. we would see a careful Air Force that would be merely probing and doing recon missions rather than assaulting with 20-50 planes at a time.. If one says, yes, its all true, but big BUT, ..if SAM's are passive and ultra playing it safe than whats the point, they will not defend the target.. yes its true, but you don't know that.. you see, flying in that plane and thinking.. wtf, i could as well be going straight into a sam trap..this creates enormous problems with military planners and they hate it absolutely.. Thats why US command always follows the pattern of : First wave-tomahawk destruction of bridges, C&C, military baracks, actually the first wave is just blowing shit up and causing damage and also psychological pressure.. it is neccessary in order to insult the enemy and make him angry and TURN ALL his sensor so we can finally target something we really need to destroy.. because without this.. there is no Second Wave-SEAD, or Third Wave-tactical target destruction coupled with army formation destruction for which you need to do close up and not 5000 miles away with a tomahawk).. So, in a game arena.. i see the better team winning, it won't matter if you are attacker or defender, only those that will know how to tease, deceive and make the opponent feel safe and sure of his plan while yours is hidden and disguised ..only those will win.. But to say ha.. no way, SAMs will win, or Air power will win.. i don't think so.. like in the real world.. it depends on many things.. but its mostly training and actual state of force on the ground-if attacker has 200 planes at disposal and defender 2 sams and 5 fighter jets than yeah i think we can be sure who will win and who will loose..for that you don't need a raptor to tip the balance ))) So i would like to see balanced out MP.. But with some flexibility..so commander can decide based on the teams strategy what would be better, .. more fighter jets, more CAS and SAMs.. maybe an amphibious ship in exchange for those 8 CAS planes?.. hmmm.... decisions decisions..

yeah i agree, you need alot of players for this.. so there must be an expending of player base if one is to be successful with what has been discussed here.. money reward could get some players that never heard of sims into.. most will not like it, but the BUZZ generated will definately get some new blood in, maybe just enough to fill up most of the machines in the DCS MP world.. But even if not alot of players are in, whats most important is the commander position, the one that overseas and makes tactical decisions ,.. with this you alone can make a huuge diference.. for instance telling my stupid AI flying friend to fly with turned off radar, or my beloved SAM to turn of everything and wait for further orders.. and tell him to turn the radar on when there is like 10 planes above him and watch the fireworks afterwards))) .. One step at a time, .. we will get there, of that i'm sure.. people want a real challenge and this is it.. maybe ARMA and BF3 community will start defecting.. there must be a strategy how to do this, .. war is everywhere, in DCS devs teams and also in getting market share, we all need to do our best to steal that blood from other platforms--- why? Because DCS platform i know fur sure is BETTER in all aspects! .. and that money reward must be implemented somehow, that will be the new thing that nobody else has.. DCS will be number 1 server full all the time team)) ... i hope, i really do..

super awesome hard work ... the whole thing is elevated tactically and strategically, yes, recon is needed but how do you send it in such a way that is not blown to pieces, .. also knowing there will be tactics involved the whole air-to-air battles are not about shooting planes down but denying them airspace.. as in real life. a Combat Air Patrol for instance will have to have nerves of steel to not deviate more than 15 miles from the waypoints he is on since more than that will mess up his fuel-range and also might put him in danger from SAM traps... There will be a need of dancing on the frontline with all kind of elements of Air power for the first hours of battle, .. yes, enemy air suppresion through air superiority mission is necessary but knowing if you hunt the enemy air into enemy land you will get it by SAM's.. Also, HARM is far from some magical weapon that will get rid of SAMs))) Turning active sensors off makes SAM's basically invisible until you reach the optical -IR range and scan the area by "hand" and hope you see him before he sees you-doubt that will happen).. Also, SAMs will move from one location to another so that will also upset the tactical play a bit, not to mention if the devs develop realistic "fake transponders" which simulate the Hz-frequency of the origin units radar sensor and acts as a beacon for HARM it will mostly be decoy that HARMs will be hitting.. while the SAM's wait miles infront of those decoys to fry your ass as you fire those HARMs)).. About teams, yes, of course, you shouldn't be able just to move from one team one minute to another one! ) .. I think there should be like a "contract" you sign which makes it impossible to be in another team until the "battle" is over(battle should last for 12 hours-involving as i said in first post : repositioning of forces according to strategy, tactical bias, then in real time starting all kind of sorties-recon, jamming, awacs, air-superiority, hopefully successful SEAD missions and even more importantly figuring where enemy ground forces ARE and where they are heading.. and then orchestrating the whole ensemble of planes and what not to stop them and making sure your guys reach their objective .. Weapons and ammo should be limited so it should be a tough decision to decide what to destroy and where.. if you arm your planes to strike at 3 airfields even though you are not sure or have recon there are any planes there (we all know Crimea is full of airfields and its up to commanders to decide whether to spread the planes across all airfield to minimize catastrophic loss in an event of runway destruction or place then in 1-2 airfields and guard them more effectivelly while decoying the enemy with all other "empty airfields") .. But purchasing good quality pilots and commanders that are proven should add the flavor, and contracts would be impossible to break(you sign with your nick, code of the game you get when you purchase the game etc.. so basically its your ID).. if you want out of the contract well, be VERY good and other teams will want you.. but as i said, this is up to the players and teams, as and IF money will be involved this thing will take a life of its own.. who knows we might see a "stock market" where awesome players will quote high and lousy ones will suck down.. and then a battle or two of clusterf*ck proportions for the very high quality guys could start falling down))) hmmm, do i buy now knowing this guy is good and maybe had a bad day, or he really sucks and know it is becoming clear?)) .. i tell you guys this adds a new element of game fun.. A contract would be lets say 3 games, .. you can't change team, after than you are FREE agent, you can go where they want you.. or it could be for more .. as i said the game dynamics and NEED to WIN (cuz of money reward) would determine how this dynamics develop.. should i say, the free market will decide the price of all this.. the basics of economy of "demand-need" .. we as players should just enjoy and concentrate on developing tactics and strategies of our own to be good and inflict more damage to enemy and control more enemy ground then he does to us.. DCS the new huuuuge thing after apple ))) i hope))

With Combined Arms coming as i have always hoped (because AI is we all know stupid in all games not just DCS but everywhere we look) things will be very very different i think. I can't imagine jumping in A-10 and within minutes start blasting my maverics one after another at tanks.. first of all, you need to find those tanks.. So you need recon, after that you need to be directed to the battlefield by AWACs or JointStar system, .. and then somehow have a successful SEAD mission, .. and here is my major point.. IF we -human players can control- SAMs systems such as active and passive systems i can't see the humans in planes can survive for long))) If you turn all your systems off, and just passivelly observing with optical systems, infrared systems, IIR systems, .. woow, .. those planes will fall like crap)) and i will be happy for that because too much have people started to believe SAMs are nothing but a "road bump")) The problem becomes with training, if you have some serious dudes playing with SAMs and are good at positioning and tempting baits (imagine Mig-21 bating an F-16 straight into SA-15 or Buk system kill zone?))) sweeet ))) .. I love you DCS )) .. Multi Play will be one hell of a slaughter zone, .. i would like to imagine it goes like this: It starts at let say 3:00 in the morning, before the start you can re-position your forces (airplanes in airfields, SAMs, radar systems, ships, etc.. where you want-within the limits of your territory of course) after that the game begins, .. and obviously you know nothing where the enemy is, .. of course you can start initiating attacks on infrastructure-roads, bridges, enemy arms depots(if you know where they are), airfields etc.. or you can start doing the job properly by first sending recon flights coupled with CAP to get air superiority first and all the time there is already a GROUND FORCE war happening where commanders are sending tank divisions, recon divisions on the ground to capture certain key "Victory" points etc.. With all this i have one big problem.. WHO decides who will take the prestiges role of Commander, General, Major.. don't get me wrong, i would love to be a pilot blasting thanks, or fighter pilot blasting those who blast my guys on the ground, or tank operator blasting stuff on the ground or SAM operator blasting CAS and CAP flights off the air.. but to be the one who manages all, and re-directs is of course the highest achievement that MUST go to the best virtual general there is.. If you give the role of the commander to some noob i can imagine the slaughter that will happen in the virtual world.. ))) There should be a ranking of some sort, where your kills, losses somehow add up and with it the improvement in RANK, .. so slowly you can get to be a general, also people under your command can give "recommendation"-give you +, or -, ... as a sign of approval with your orders during MP. on the server you would get all this info and then teams would form up, .. and people would be able to join one team or the other.. you can even "BUY" a commander or a pilot if you will.. DCS can make a whole other bussiness out of this and should take this opportunity not to miss it to other third party devs.. Imagine a rooster pool, where you decide which pilots, tank operators, SAM operators you wanna have in your team, .. and if that guy doesn't want to be in your team, ..well, how about 50 $ per month sound ? .. You will say, but why would you buy someone, whats the point if you play for fun, you will loose money, right? ..Not neccessito my friends.. The winner of the weekly game would get 60% of money generated by traffic to the MultiPlayer server where there would be commercial adds etc.. how much money that would be would in the end determine the urge to buy someone and for how much.. The fierce competition in this MP that would develop through time i think will create such virtual pilots/operators/tankist beasts that can fly stuff and blow shit up that i think even the US pilots would be afraid to join in this virtual world and test their skills.. Competition will breed new tactics, methods, and strategies.. omg, DCS don't miss this up, .. you can increase your revenue by 1000% if you manage to implement this MP part of the game.. and its mostly service oriented, no need to create new engine or whatever, its mostly internet based work, just hire some web-server company to get into it.. and we shall put you on the pedestal that you rightfully deserve!!!!