CheckGear

Basically, make campaign progression less linear and more cyclical, but with success or failure contributing to the overall trend of the campaign. That way, you can "simulate" a dynamic campaign without actually implementing a dynamic system.

Forget ground units - if war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz, it's going to primarily be an air-sea war, save for land-based anti-ship and ballistic missiles and air defenses. What I want to see is more commercial air and sea traffic to simulate the crowded nature of the region's airspace and waters. That's where the ROEs are really going to matter and they matter every day in the real world. Save the insurgent/terrorist-hunting for the Caucasus or a potential Syria map.

Where in the Strait of Hormuz would any of this come into play? Don't say "Iran invades Dubai." :megalol:

Kuwait would have to be part of an entirely different map, due to the sheer size of the region. I'd love to see a southern Iraq-northern Saudi Arabia-Kuwait map that allow you to play out Desert Storm and Southern Watch missions.

The nature of the maps makes it easier to make shorter missions. I don't think any virtual pilot wants to sit in front of their PC for eight hours. :joystick: The next mission becoming harder as a result of failure in a prior mission is a game design concept more than a realism concept. In the real world, missions don't necessarily become harder just because you didn't accomplish all of your goals. Remember the enemy is a living, breathing creature and will make adjustments accordingly to conform to the new reality. If anything, the impact of failure is felt on the strategic level, of which the fighter pilot or infantryman actually has little control over. This is actually what I'd like to see more of in a campaign - unintended consequences. War is an inherently chaotic affair and simply winning battle after battle isn't sufficient to create strategic/political victory. One way I can imagine a campaign implementing this model of chaos is to throw in in-between missions, as you put it, that either allow you to make up for a past failure in some other way or "punish" you for success.

Thanks for the info! Very insightful. It's also interesting to note that early F-14 squadrons had few LTJGs to begin with. I guess they wanted to staff their newest and best fighter squadrons with their Sunday-punchers.

I have it, but big-boy responsibilities have made it difficult for me to commit to playing it as much as it'd like. I'd say, from what I've seen, the Red Flag campaigns are the best. It's funny because Red Flag is training, but it feels so much more like a real war.

I think this is what the flight sims of the '80s and '90s excelled at - story-driven campaigns that made you feel a part of the war. Falcon 4.0's dynamic campaign was ground-breaking at the time, but in the long run, it suffered from the fact it didn't deliver that same sense of immersion as a story-driven campaign. These campaigns can also be semi-dynamic - how you perform in one mission will affect proceeding missions.

So be it - do four separate campaigns that allow you to see one conflict from many different perspectives. Nothing I suggested is mutually exclusive with story-driven and immersive campaigns. I even laid out a pretty compelling backstory, suggesting I share the same preferences as you do. I'd rather see that than a fully-dynamic campaign, which requires trading off narratives in favor of allowing a campaign to write its own story and your imagination filling in the blanks.

What'd I love to see is a campaign in which you can play the role of different units in a mission. For example, in my "Seize Abu Musa Island" scenario in the Strait of Hormuz, you could either play as an AV-8B flying CAS, a UH-1N commanding Marines during the landing and providing CloserAS, F/A-18C(N)s flying from a carrier providing cover from higher up, and eventually, F-14A/Bs flying CAP for the entire assault.

If we're going with present-day fleet depictions, then Super Hornets, KC-10s, KC-130s, and KC-135s would be most accurate. 1991 - 1994 would be the KA-6D; 1991 - 2008 would be the S-3.

Thanks. I always found that interesting.

I second that.

The best part of this screenshot? VFA-113 "STINGERS!!!"

The GR4 Tornado would be beastly. It would be perfect for the Strait of Hormuz map, since the British are bolstering their presence in the region one again. F-15E's another good option.

Why did F-14 "nugget" (rookie) NFOs tend to be LTJGs, while Naval Aviator nuggets tended to by LTs? Is the NFO training program that much shorter?

Which one?

If the aircraft is capable of a certain feature or set-up, it'll likely be included in the sim. If it's not, then don't expect it. If game programming limitations prevent something from being featured, the developers will have to make trade-offs and I'd rather they strive to simulate how a particular platform was used in practice as opposed to what would be cooler. That's my point. Given photographic proof, it seems like the F/A-18 not only carries two GBU-12s at one station, but does so operationally. I don't have a problem with it. My issue is when people start asking for things that straight-up never happened, like AMRAAMs on the F-14. I know all it lacked was a software upgrade, but if that software upgrade never happened in real life, then it wasn't part of the plane.

The game Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations is the best unofficial source for technical data. In neither the Navy or Marine Corps set-ups is the Hornet carrying GBU-12s in a dual-setup. I think something the DCS fan base needs to collectively understand is that what is theoretically possible isn't always operationally possible. It's the same reason why Tomcat almost never carried six Phoenix missiles operationally, despite it being theoretically possible for it to do so. I think sims should adhere to the real world as much possible. If it didn't happen in real life, it probably shouldn't be in the sim.

The F/A-18C, in addition to the Super Hornet, has been one of the stars of Inherent Resolve. It's good to see the Hornet (and Harrier II) continuing to kick ass and take names after all these years.

In the real world, Harrier II training takes place at MCAS Cherry Point. Making a map just for it would be redundant, so Nevada is the only choice for training. As for an actual campaign, the Strait of Hormuz is most ideal for the Harrier; let me pitch the following scenario: Fall 1996. In response to their verified involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in June of that year which killed 19 American servicemembers, President Clinton has ordered retaliatory strikes on Iranian military targets in and along the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes fail to register their intended effect and Iran responds with belligerent and reckless activity in the Strait and terrorist action throughout the Middle East. Clinton decides to escalate and orders the seizure of Abu Musa Island, which has become heavily fortified in recent years with land-based missiles and hosts Revolutionary Guard naval forces. Citing the risks posed to both commercial shipping and U.S./Coalition military forces, the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, embarked with the USS Tarawa Amphibious Ready Group, is tasked with conducting an amphibious assault on the island. The AV-8Bs of the ARG are tasked with providing close air support for the Marines making the landing, while additional protection for the operation is provided by the aircraft and surface ships of the Carl Vinson and Enterprise battle groups.

If memory serves me correctly, the only A-6 simulator ever made was Flight of the Intruder from 1990. Anybody play it?

Should be obvious by now, but it's going to go AV-8B-F/A-18C-F-14A/B, in that order. I'd be shocked if F-14A/B was released in 2018.

Wow! It reminds me of the old school combat flight sims from the '90s!!! I'd buy DCS: F-14 just for the music!

I just hope landings are graded accurately.