CheckGear

Thanks. I look forward to flying AV-8Bs, F-14s, and F/A-18s from "Gonzo Station" (Gulf of Oman/North Arabian Sea)! I'm actually relieved that the map is smaller; it works better from a gameplay/mission-design perspective. Besides, Doha and Manama don't hold a candle to Abu Dhabi or Dubai. :thumbup:

Sorry if I missed it, but will the SoH map encompass all the area shown below? If so, can we expect to see Doha and Manama as well at some point in the future?

One my favorite parts of the trailer was when I saw that Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Bandar Abbas will all be fully replicated! I can't wait to bomb the heck out of Bandar Abbas!!!

I hope so, too. Otherwise, even our obstinate bosses are going to have to stay home from work because they can't afford gas.

So... how'd you explain it to the widows? :D

I know the USMC wasn't entirely satisfied with the Harrier, but I never realized it had this reputation of being a death trap. Thankfully, it appears it has become a much safer, more reliable aircraft, and seems to have finally delivered in its promises during Inherent Resolve. Unfortunately, it appears it came at the cost of many airframes and lives.

Compelling backstory, life-like chain of political events, despite being alternate history, and definitely has that "storm on the horizon" feel to it. Be sure to have a snippet about the French pilots going to the Las Vegas Strip to blow off some steam before the war! :drink: I take it this campaign's going to feature the same "characters" who'll be featured in the SoH campaign to come? One unrelated note - one reason I think any SoH campaign ought to take place in the present or near-future is because the amount of advanced weaponry the Gulf states are purchasing. They're buying nearly every advanced platform and weapon in the American, British, French, and Russian arsenal. Even if they're not playable, it'd be awesome to see these campaigns unfold with the world's most advanced weaponry at play in one, relatively small, theater.

Real world events are making the Strait of Hormuz the "must-have" map. There's a major arms build-up going on in the region among the Arab states. They're buying everything with petrodollars and natural gas profits - American, British, French, and Russian weaponry. This makes nearly every piece of weaponry in the DCS universe fair game for employment in the SoH. Political tensions are rising as well; there's a good chance we may see an armed clash or two over the Strait in the near future.

:thumbup: The notion that women can or can't do something is meaningless, because not everyone can do everything. A lot of men apply to become fighter pilots; most of them fail to make it. Somehow, translating this unconsciously-accepted fact to women is considered bigoted. I, for one, have no problem with women being given the opportunity to try. What I have a big problem with is the idea they should be allowed to pass to assuage the critics or that they have the legitimacy to complain about the standards being unfair if they fail to make the cut. Nobody would take a man seriously if did the same thing in the face of failure; why should women, who are equal to men, be any different?

The only thing that'd make it all better is if ED included an all-expenses paid vacation to Dubai for the first ten buyers! :pilotfly:

Combat Air Patrol 2 actually has some real good graphics. Nothing beats DCS, though.

SoH is definitely the map I'm looking forward to most. It's the first "real-world" theater in DCS, at least from a U.S. perspective. In fact, I can't remember any combat flight sim taking place in the Strait.

Sorry gentlemen, just having a heart-to-heart over a glass of whiskey. I'm all good here! :drink: Say... care to join me??? :megalol: Copy, like I said, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I never questioned the fun-factor of your work, so I'm sure it'll be worth a look, either way. The UAE reference was made by BalticDragon.

And my post (and BalticDragon's reference) was about the Iran nuke deal, specifically, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015. The negotiations for that specific deal began in 2013. You can consider the negotiations in 2013 a resumption of previous attempts at negotiation in 2006, but in no way can you ever consider the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015 to be a result of negotiations that took place in '06, especially considering these negotiations failed, as you pointed out, not to mention they were conducted under entirely different presidential administrations on both sides. You really have to stretch the facts to fit your reality. So that one oversight on my part overrides my broader, more important argument? In your mind, there's no difference between a small-scale, largely-unresisted border incursion, versus an invasion of the UAE or a sustained land offensive into the Caucasus? Again, missing the forest for the trees, even if you "won" on this minor point. It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Simply driving across the border largely uncontested means absolutely nothing. It's like saying strolling into a house whose doors were unlocked makes me a good thief. And by focusing on one statement that doesn't invalidate my bigger argument, you fail to address the important question - does Iran have the capability to invade the UAE or sustain a land offensive into the Caucasus? The facts say no. Oh no, I've read every word you've typed. I could just as easily ask if you're responding to discuss or to be argumentative? Again, do you consider driving across an open border, largely uncontested, to be a sure sign of being able to invade another country (forget conducting a major operation for the moment)? This is precisely why I find your microscopic-level obsession with that one statement incredibly bizarre. Not worth addressing, because you have an unhealthy obsession with something that doesn't affect my larger argument in any way. And you clearly didn't read all of it, as it says Iran would get walloped in the process, which makes such an operation futile and, therefore, unlikely. And makes me question exactly what you're so turned up about. It was part of my discussion, which you were responding to. You're cherry-picking, at this point. And what does this prove? That Iranians are as capable as U.S.-led OPFOR in a training exercise? Millennium Challenge was certainly a wake-up call, but there's a certain degree of unreasonable alarmism that came from it. Ultimately, you have to look at what the Iranians are doing and what they have in their toolbelt. And I can attest, from personal experience, that the U.S. is completely aware of what the Iranians are capable of doing. A real shooting war would be the ultimate test of that and, of course, we hope that never comes. I get it, you're obsessed with a point that hurts your argument more than it hurts mine. Of course it wouldn't have been the end of it. Your insistence that me overlooking the fact Iran drove across the border into Iraq in 2009 completely invalidates my entire argument shows you would've continued pressing the point for the sake of pressing it. Not to mention I never reacted harshly to your admonishment; I just bluntly pointed out the incident doesn't mean what you think it means. If anything, me not :worthy: to you seems to be the real sticking point, here. Like I said, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You concede Iran's chances of success aren't very high, yet you're fighting to the death over something so improbable that it's not even worth seriously considering? So what if they train and "could" do something? If it can't be done in practice, it means nothing in the real world. The U.S. "could" take out the North Korean regime. Does this mean we should consider it a desireable or likely scenario? And excuse me if I didn't find it necessary to write a whole research paper covering Iranian military capabilities from every angle. This is a message board; I address issues and clarify things as I go along. As much as I don't appreciate the ad hominems, I don't want to argue, especially if you agree with some of what I said. Feel free to have the last word because I can't make my points any clearer than I have.

No worries about the long post, I'll gladly answer them with an equally long one: Not only do I agree, this is so not what I was arguing in favor of, so this is an irrelevant point to be making. Gameplay-versus-realism trade-offs are inevitable and I fully understand the balance isn't always easy to maintain. In other words, "believable" means nothing, because it's all a matter of personal opinion and, therefore, largely subjective. Given Russia's history of military operations in the Caucasus, the largely favorable geography in the region, and the military balance in favor of Moscow, there was at least a precedent that simply isn't there for a country like Iran. So while it'd be disingenuous for me to say I'd have found, back in 2011, Russian annexation of Crimea to be believable, it'd have been perfectly reasonable for someone else, particularly one more familiar with the issue, to consider the risk of Russia annexing Crimea to be high, especially given the ongoing dispute since the fall of the Soviet Union. Like you imply, anything can be believable, but some things are more reasonable to believe than others. As for there not being a major reaction from the West? Totally believable. Very few of Russia's aggressive actions, going back to the Soviet era, have been answered in any meaningful way by the West - Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in '68, Afghanistan in '79, Georgia in '08, so on and so forth. In fact, I remember having this very discussion with somebody back when the annexation of Crimea occurred. When asked what we thought the West would do, another person replied, "Nothing," citing the examples listed above. And you know what? He was right. When it comes to understanding what's possible and what isn't, history is your friend. You answered your own question. Iran is an unconventional threat and I never suggested otherwise. Your scenarios suggest Iran has considerable conventional capabilities, which it would require in order to at least overcome the opposition it'd run into in an attempted invasion of the UAE. With the exception of ballistic missiles, Israel has never been under conventional threat from Iran, but it's certainly been under unconventional threat. I've read your argument many times and there's still no logic or factual basis to it. I've no clue what you're trying to say about sanctions, but on what basis would attacking the UAE ever be easy for Iran? If you're not convinced, read the studies I've provided - they're from think tanks like CSIS, some of the best in the business of military analysis. Iran has limited amphibious capabilities and few means of effectively supporting such an operation; their chances of success are so low it amounts to a last-gasp suicide mission. You also missed the part in the piece where it says it is unlikely Iran would've actually tried to close the Strait. Even if they could close it, they can't close it for long and would see their forces obliterated in response. It amounts to a borderline suicidal move that might be useful as a threat and for political reasons, but, like nuclear weapons, is rather useless in practice. Given that controlling the Strait for any meaningful length of time is a tall order for Iran, how much easier do you think it'd be for them to invade and occupy parts of UAE and then try controlling the Strait on both sides? They would've incurred serious losses by then that'd make such a move, again, suicidal. So no, it's not "better" from any perspective for Iran. Somebody posted the following: Again, don't take my word for it. There are people out there who get paid to study these things; see what they have to say. You have to be obtuse to think Iran could successfully mount an invasion of the UAE - it flies in the face of all the facts, one of which is that the considerable U.S. presence in the region acts as a deterrent against exactly such a move. I have no doubt it'll be entertaining. I'm merely pointing out where you got your facts wrong and I find it equally comical you insist on continuing to get them wrong. :confused: That said, I think I've made my point and, after all, game design is a form of art and is entirely a subjective affair. I'll chalk it up to creative license and see what you come up with!

Don't want childish behavior? Don't bring it to the table. Here's what you said: The only reference I made to the Iran nuke deal was that BalticDragon was wrong in saying negotiations for it were underway in 2012, when they didn't start until 2013. Unless you're referring to every single discussion the U.S. and Iran held on the latter's nuclear program, which, by the way, were very few, if any, then the nuclear deal was of no relevance in 2012 because they weren't talking about it then. In fact, the JCPOA was as ground-breaking as it was because it involved direct U.S.-Iran talks on a matter of heavy substance, something that had never happened before. I am very much correct on this point and the facts back it up. It's also why I asked for clarification - I made one reference to the Iran nuke deal, it was very much correct, therefore, unless you were under the impression the U.S. and Iran had held talks on its nuclear program since 1987, it wasn't obvious exactly what you were challenging. But you haven't proven me wrong on anything. I've provided abundant amount of evidence that backs up my argument. These aren't my facts, these are the facts; my sources, which are credible, are making the arguments. You, on the other hand, by focusing on that one statement, are deliberately missing the forest for the trees and engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Your logic appears to be that the ability to cross borders, which is all the Iranians really did, amounts to being capable of mounting major invasions (this is what we're talking about here). It's a faulty generalization, the same as saying "If a national soccer team beat a junior national team of another country, it should be able to beat the senior national team as well." I'm sure even you can see the lack of logic in that. I've already provided evidence that Iran's ability to do anything is incredibly limited, suggesting if they were to try, they'd fail. Unless you take the Iranians for idiots, it's likely they're aware of their weaknesses, which explains much of their strategy. So it means nothing that I said what I said, nor does it mean anything that Iran crossed the border, largely uncontested, and seized an oil field, because that wasn't the question at hand. The question at hand was, can they mount a major offensive such as one into the Caucasus or across the Strait into the UAE? The evidence says? No. Practices what? Driving across the border into southern Iraq? Invading the UAE? A northward offensive towards the Caucasus? And may I remind you Iran practices sinking U.S. aircraft carriers; does this mean they'd actually try or are capable of being successful? You appear to have a bad habit of drawing broad conclusions based on narrow evidence. I don't know everything. But I do know what I know is correct; I've done the research through credible sources, read countless books on the matter, and I've provided many sources to you. In return, you've provided nothing except fallacies and a red herring, and have presented things as evidence that might become fact depending on how well you play word games. Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. You get so caught up in one thing, you forgot to look at the whole picture. That limited amphibious capability would run into serious resistance with little support for itself, implying that their chances of failure or unacceptable casualties are incredibly high. Put yourself in the Iranians' shoes; would you roll the dice, knowing the odds are lopsided against your favor? The link you provided, which is hardly an authoritative source, even suggests, rather blatantly, that an Iranian invasion of the UAE would end very badly. Again, the Iranians are probably at least partially aware of this, so unless they're suicidal or feel like the apocalypse is nigh, this is scenario so unlikely it's an insult to one's intelligence to seriously consider it. This is why we evaluate their capabilities based off the facts and assess the threat within reason. Iran can certainly wreak havoc in the Strait of Hormuz, but their ability to put up a sustained military effort of any sort is quite limited. Their strategy is to make the cost of victory for their enemy so great, they won't even try to test Iran. That doesn't make a war impossible, but it certainly doesn't suggest these major war scenarios everyone keeps writing up. In all likelihood, a U.S.-Iran clash will be brief, violent, and frustratingly inconclusive.

Given the F/A-18C is also a Marine strike fighter, it appears to be the Marines' time in DCS!

You said I was factually incorrect. I mentioned a number of facts in my post; I was asking you to clarify what you were specifically referring to. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he typed. I'm guessing you're referring to this incident? The story doesn't make anything I said inaccurate; if anything, you're drawing some insanely broad conclusions based on relatively little evidence. You're suggesting that because Iran was able to conduct a limited, lightly-contested border incursion, covering a relatively short distance, that this translates into the ability to conduct an offensive through Armenia towards the Caucasus? Or that this means it's able to conduct a cross-Strait invasion of the UAE? There's a difference between crossing a desert border into a country with underdeveloped defenses versus trekking through mountains or conducting an amphibious assault. Here are some studies that demonstrate just how implausible an Iranian invasion of anything other than something right over the border (assuming the geography is favorable) truly is. More importantly, it's simply not part of Iran's strategy. Here's some snippets: The above points completely rule out an invasion of the UAE or into the Caucasus. Here's another study that offers insight of what Iran's up to. https://www.csis.org/analysis/deterring-iran-after-nuclear-deal

I have no clue what you're referring to. Be specific. Which is why I said I'm not too down on the scenarios based in the Caucasus. ED was dead set on making the theatrical focus of the franchise in that region; I'm not going to dwell on decisions made decades ago going back to the game that started it all, Su-27 Flanker. What I'm referring to is the new scenarios to come. The prevailing intent appears to be to make increasingly outlandish scenarios with no basis in the real world. This trend should end. I get what you're saying. That still doesn't make it believable. Given DCS is a tactical-level wargame, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But, notwithstanding that some of the scenarios do feature authentic units and OOBs, that wasn't my point. My focus was more on the actual scenario - the backstory, setting, etc. All these things matter because it's the strategic considerations that dictate what happens on the operational and tactical level, or whether the war will happen at all. This matters in all reality-based wargames; DCS shouldn't be any different. Keep in mind; I'm not entirely against these fantasy scenarios. Even hard-core wargames feature some craziness or major pushes beyond reality. My problem is that every campaign or campaign request thus far seems to lean towards the unbelievable and implausible. There should be a better balance between the two ends of the spectrum. Red Flag was an example of a real-world campaign done very well. I certainly did. I'm awaiting his response.

It's the comical nature of posts like these that lead me to say DCS fans and, frankly, developers, have a very liberal view of what's believable and what's not. It seems like the high demand for authenticity and realism goes completely out the window when it doesn't involve the planes and weapons themselves. Notwithstanding the fact negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal weren't even underway in 2012, since when does Iran have the ability to invade anything? One serious examination of their military capabilities reveals a largely defensive force, whose strengths are largely within their asymmetric and unconventional abilities. Better yet, why? Why would Iran invade the UAE? I understand the leadership in Tehran is viewed as irrational by many in the West, but this just isn't the case. How does invading the UAE make sense given the realities of Iran's military capabilities. Better yet, how does attempting an impossible invasion of the UAE help Iran's strategic/political posture in any way? Wars don't unfold the way you think they do - often, with success, comes more headaches and the weaker countries don't deal with these headaches very well. Given the realities of an Iranian invasion of UAE, imagine how much more ridiculous an Iranian invasion towards the Black Sea region is. You may as well arm the Iranians with technology delivered by aliens if you're going to go there. I'm a lot less critical of the Caucasus region scenarios, primarily because it's just one of three maps currently available and that's going to limit the kinds of scenarios that can be made. Going forward, I want to see more believable and realistic scenarios - thus far, what we have is anything but. Below is a link to see the wars that are unfolding throughout the world; one of the things you'll see is how few of these conflicts are likely to trigger American intervention. The idea U.S./Western forces would be so deeply involved in the Caucasus has always been unbelievable and unrealistic. https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker#!/ If you still intend to create a Strait of Hormuz scenario taking place in 2012, here's an article detailing a real-world chain of events that'd form a better basis for a U.S.-Iran clash that year. It only takes a bit of research to avoid going off into the world of crazy scenarios that have no grip on reality. http://warisboring.com/before-the-nuclear-deal-america-and-iran-flirted-with-war/ Here's a bunch of articles that detail just how limited Iran's capabilities are and should show you where the real Iranian threat lies: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/all-the-frightening-ways-iran-can-strike-back-america-over-22717 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/irans-navy-threat-america-22722 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-iran-sink-us-aircraft-carrier-22831 Finally, here's an example of what should be done - this is a scenario based on current events that, while taking "creative license," sticks to the facts and doesn't go off the deep end. This is what a believable scenario is - a UAE invasion isn't. Forgive me for my blunt tone, but I just think DCS ought to apply the same standards of authenticity and realism to campaigns as well, because after all, the subject of DCS is war in the real world.

The DCS fan base has a very liberal definition of "believable." :megalol:

As more maps, especially the Strait of Hormuz, get released, I hope to see more than just the same old Russia-oriented scenarios. I get the sense the developers are essentially re-creating the Syrian Civil War by proxy, but I'd like to see superpower confrontation take a backseat and focus more on regional conflicts, which are the most likely form of conflict today.

Here's a discussions we can all enjoy; what are your preferred load-outs for the types of missions you're looking forward to most while flying the Hornet? Here are mine: Anti-insurgent/irregular/terrorist CAS load-out: 2x AGM-65E Maverick (Laser) 1x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 2x AIM-9X Sidewinder 2x GBU-54(V)2/BLJDAM 1x AN/ASQ-228 Terminator II ATFLIR 1x 330 USG Drop Tank Anti-Iranian Navy/IRGC Navy in the Strait of Hormuz: 2x AGM-84N Harpoon II+ 2x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 2x AIM-9X Sidewinder 3x 330 USG Drop Tank Strikes on Iranian land targets along the Strait of Hormuz: 1x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 2x AIM-9X Sidewinder 2x GBU-12F/B Paveway II DMLGB 1x AN/ASQ-228 Terminator II ATFLIR 1x 330 USG Drop Tank I certainly hope all the ordnance I've listed above makes it to the final cut.

I think a "short" campaign, such as my Iran scenario, would suit a story-driven campaign best, while a "long" campaign, would suit the semi-dynamic format better. As a sidenote, I want to see a campaign that demonstrates how air power is utilized in practice, as opposed to the same old "worst-case-scenario" type of campaigns that we've seen time and again in combat flight sims. I like authentic and realistic backstories, even if it comes at the cost of an epic narrative.

And you ability or inability to protect neutral air traffic and shipping can help or undermine your campaign... :thumbup: