Exorcet

Use dummy targets. Conceptually: Player in zone around SAM > Spawn dummy aircraft (disable EPLRS so it doesn't appear on datalinks, radio silence so it doesn't talk, radar off so it's not on RWR) SAM will maybe shoot at the dummy. If it's slow moving and doesn't mover (Reaction to threat = No reaction) the missile will mostly go straight and look ballistic. This is at least something I've done with AAA. It should work with missiles, but probably not as nicely. You might also consider making the player, or non dummy AI invisible when close to the SAM so that the SAM doesn't shoot at them. Nearby planes will probably get SAM launch warnings on the RWR though, can't really do anything about that. You could try shutting off the radar as soon as the missile fires, but I think the missiles explode in that case, needs to be tested.

The initial area may lack water. I doubt the final map will only cover land. Kuwait has a coast, and if the map is focused on the Gulf War, it has to be there. The bigger question, in my opinion, is how much water will we get. Will we actually be able to place carriers where they operated (ie not 5 miles offshore) or will we have to place them where the map allows because we have no other choice, like the Black Sea.

I can't recall ever seeing a launcher I liked. Will have to see what this one is like, but being able to just bypass it and going into the game directly sounds like a great option. I really miss the original DCS that just started up with no account sign in or anything.

This is why I fly the Persian Gulf map more than any other, so not every mission is the same old 5 minute flight to the front lines on a tiny map. If we could add airbases to maps, I'd be flying even further. I really want the waters south of Saudi Arabia included as well, but with them being so far from the Gulf, I can understand if it's not feasible.

Conversely the F-35 has stealth, speed, SA, and self defense over the A-10, which is going to make it much more survivable in combat. The F-35 is replacing the A-10 because it's outdated. It's of little use in a modern conflict. Too vulnerable to SAM's and fighters, too expensive for COIN.

I think the idea is more centered on a free to play multiseater, which could be a nice addition to DCS. Though we have the free trial, so you can already coordinate with someone to multiseat for free. The new verification needed is annoying though.

Like AI simplification issue, not really Spitfire related. There is an option in the ME to tell the AI to drop all bombs on a target, could try using that whenever placing a Spitfire.

I don't see any need for a discount, but not many would turn it down.

While those were short, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding some fictional embellishment. I'm looking forward to both historical missions and hypothetical proxy wars between the US and a healthier USSR in the middle east.

Little known feature in DCS that might help you is plane jumping. You can control any AI plane on your side that is flyable. If for example your plane is out of ammo or shot down, you can jump into your wingman's plane and keep flying. Something to be cautious about is that if the mission maker does not plan for this, missions may not work properly when you jump. However if it is accounted for, it can greatly expand your options for completing a mission. How it works:

Recently the S-300's self defense capability was reduced. You really want SA-15's around it for HARM defense, but even that isn't as perfect as it used to be.

I think capability is what matters because DCS is not a strictly historical simulation. If you want to simulate real world 1980's/90's Germany/Poland, restrict ER's. If you want to simulate alternate history Germany/Poland where the USSR exported ER's, allow them. The plane itself should only be limited by its physical configuration. The historicity is up to the mission creator in DCS, as it should be. As a sim we can explore hypothetical or completely made up situations and I think that is a good thing.

Could we have the ability to link the start or end of one task to another? Example: AI plane has two waypoints. WP1 has a Search Then Engage Task. WP2 has an orbit task. Both tasks are set for 10 minutes. If The STE at WP1 is triggered before the plane gets to WP2, then it's possible that it spends 10 minutes engaging targets and then 10 minutes orbiting when the intention is that it only spends 10 minutes total following the waypoints. The problem can be avoided by putting the STE and orbit on the same WP, but this is not always desirable. If instead the end condition for the orbit could be linked to the end of the STE, then the AI would skip the orbit if it already spent 10 minutes engaging targets.

J-10 would be great, even as AI only. Really missing for a lot of modernish scenarios involving China.

Something for ED to consider, while newer assets seem to be focused on specific models or units (which is not a bad thing), perhaps we can repurpose the older AI units into more flexible stand-ins for different variants. Take the MiG-23 mentioned already. If it had a checkbox for version, we could quickly swap out the radar and armaments without needing a new 3D model. Possibly we might also get away without flight model changes, but that could be iffy. Maybe some simple multipliers for things like thrust might be needed. The basic idea is give us the ability to tweak the lower fidelity AI units to cover more aircraft. In the long run it would be best to have specific AI for each aircraft version, but it seems like this will take a long time if we go by the updates to B-1/B-52/S-3/etc.

The MiG is fine. The mission determines the balance as much as the planes themselves. Red should be on the defense. Blue on the offensive. MiG's should operate under a EWR/SAM net supported by SA-10/11. The Fulcrum can't fight the teen series head on unless AMRAAM's are restricted, but it's a potent ambush fighter. T/ET missiles are always something to watch out for. The MiG can also be paired with the JF-17 and F-14 depending on the situation. Team tactics win wars, not solo flying. In the real world MiG-21's have been useful in assisting more advanced fighters. MiG-29's can do the same. It's also worth considering that DCS can simulate situations where the Blue side isn't US/NATO. Iran vs Iraq (29's came after, but a hypothetical expansion of the war, or early MiG delivery can be simulated) for instance eliminates F-15/16/18 and can have the MiG-29 pitted against Mirage F1, where it is superior. The Tomcat and AIM-54 will still exist, but having to pick and choose fights while watching for various opponents is interesting.

MIST has a respawn function I'm pretty sure. I'm not familiar with it though. Someone who is will probably show up eventually, but in case not you can use the addGroup function in a mission editor script: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_addGroup The only potentially hard/annoying part is the group table. You can get one by opening a dummy mission with the group you want in it and then copying and pasting the table into your addGroup script, probably with variables inserted for things like position, etc. If the addGroup has the same name as a group already in the mission, the newly spawned group just overwrites the old one. I would provide a script for you but I haven't gotten around to writing one for respawns and I've got my hands full with other scripts. I do plan on writing one, but it might be months before I actually get to it.

Not only does hardware have a huge impact on AAR, real pilots say it's harder in DCS, even if you have the best setup.

Any plan to add ground based guidance?

Not yet, but it may be easier to add these types of things than to create maps of other types of regions. I don't really know if that's the case, but nothing to lose from asking.

Encompassing all the relevant areas for this map is probably impossible, but ideas and suggestions can be made. I'm most interested in the Gulf War regions, but Iran-Iraq is also quite important. I don't know what the limits are, but I'd hope we end up with something like this: Having number and distance airbases are important. On the Hormuz map for instance, many times I've run into issues with the absence of Chah Bahar and Bushehr, not to mention bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Airbases populating all corners of the map helps to create more dynamic and unpredictable situations, and being able to spread assets around to more bases helps with managing AI. Getting many important bases for the Gulf War will require SA, and ideally somewhere for carriers to operate in the southwest.

Edit - Title update since threads were merged This is one of my most anticipated maps, and as a result I'd really appreciate if lessons learned from past maps are applied here. Basically everything I posted about Kola applies: Summary of that thread: -Allow for the ability to have military targets marked on map (toggle, on for mission building, but may be off for actual flying) -Watch for AI limitations at airports. The AI is bad at handing airports where the runway is also a taxiway, as the takeoff time becomes huge -More airport parking spaces, especially when you need ground alert flights, multiple players, or many triggered flights for randomness -More large parking spots for medium/large planes, including large fighters like Su-27 In addition to these things, the follow are also what I consider important factors for Iraq: Size Ideally Desert Storm would include Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea. If this isn't possible, some kind of water should be present south of the map as a compromise for carrier operations. Seasonal Variation It would be nice for this old Black Sea feature to return. While there won't be snow in the region, variation in vegetation and water might be considered: Map limits for ME Making this larger helps in creating missions: Increased building detail/inclusion of important buildings I'm sure that this map will nature benefit from all the previous map experience ED has accumulated, but I also feel like the community is a good source of ideas, so I wanted to start a thread to point out concerns to help make the map as good as it can be.

Desert maps aren't really boring. For one thing, they aren't static and change with seasons, unfortunately ED hasn't modeled this since the Black Sea. See Iraq for instance: Note not only the changing vegetation, but the changes in bodies of water. These maps could be much more interesting if seasonal changes were modeled: Then you can also have events like flooding, dust storms, or wildfires. These things would not only improve desert maps, but all maps. Visuals aside, my personal opinion is map size and functionality beats all else. For that alone I'm glad to see Iraq if it includes the whole country along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That would make it a contender for best map to me, along with Kola.

This would tie in with something I've requested before, mission editor variables. Not only would it be nice to have a table of frequencies, but also the ability to set these frequencies as variables and input the variables into the frequency tables. Example, an AWACS is set to 300 MHz, have a variable AEW = 300 MHz. Instead of having to type 300 in the unit frequency box or change frequency commands, just type AEW. This would be especially useful if you need to change the value later. You could then just change the definition of AEW and it's updated everywhere. For the AI I'd also include a radio manager. Currently AI is set to one frequency at a time. To make them a little more realistic I set them to change frequencies (set to ATC of their airport initially, then to combat frequency after takeoff, then back to ATC on landing). It would be nice if this could be packaged into a manager using variables, something like: ATC = 251.100 MHz AEW = 300 MHz Radio ATC = ATC (AI would automatically use when taking off/landing) Set Radio ATC automatically yes/no (AI would tune to correct ATC for the airbase it is using instead of it being hardcoded) Radio combat = AEW, tune in at waypoint 2 This would be saved as a radio manager template which can then be assigned to any aircraft, probably with a waypoint or triggered action like "Use radio manager 1".

I wonder if it will come with some form of GCI enhancements.