Search the Community

Hi everyone, At the moment, when a ship comes under attack the AI makes no attempt to manoeuvre defensively and accelerate, be it to try jinking to avoid fire from naval guns or trying to make a bombing run just that little bit harder, or to unmask defensive weapons. This not only makes ships easier to hit, but it also is something that's very easy to exploit and game to increase your chances of successfully engaging a ship, sometimes significantly so, simply by attacking from a direction where the ship's more effective defensive weapons are masked. It would be better if ships would accelerate and jink to avoid weapons fire and to manoeuvre so to unmask defensive weapons systems. The same could also apply when engaging surface targets with guns (and some AI ships already manoeuvre to engage targets with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes). Ideally, there would be some decision making logic for the AI, so that it can deal with multiple threats, taking into account the speed at which the ship can turn, the direction of the threat, the arcs of weapons and the threat's ETA. Perhaps how fast the AI reacts and how effectively they open up firing arcs could be determined by the skill level. Like aircraft, there should also be a setting in the advanced waypoint options/triggered actions to control whether the AI should react or not. As an example, I've got 2 tracks below where I have an OHP firing an RGM-84 at a single Tarantul III. In the first track, the incoming missiles[note 1] approach from its port quarter and the AK-630s successfully manage to defend the ship (despite the FCR for said AK-630s being masked). In the second track, I have the missiles approach from directly ahead - despite the ship definitely detecting the threat (when the Tarantul III switches from alarm state green to red, shutters close on 4 of the bridge windows) it makes no attempt to unmask its defenses. Seeing as the AK-176 in DCS, like almost every other naval gun, is only capable of engaging surface targets[note 2], this renders the ship as good as defenseless from attacks from this direction. Numerous ships also have blind zones where certain defensive weapons cannot engage, or would improve their chances of successfully defending themselves: The Grisha V has a close-in weapons system and a naval gun on the stern, which cannot engage directly forward. The ship would be able to better defend itself if it would turn to unmask these weapons (especially when the SA-N-4 only has a single target channel and only 2 missiles ready to fire before needing to reload, making it relatively easy to saturate). Conversely, the SA-N-4 system cannot engage targets approaching from astern. The Oliver Hazard Perry and Invincible have SAM systems that also cannot engage approaching from astern. The OHP also has a CIWS (and a naval gun) that cannot engage targets directly ahead. Incidentally the STIR is masked when firing SM-1MRs (the SAM the OHP should be firing) directly forward (though the Mk 92 FCS can also provide an illumination channel forward and the STIR doesn't even exist in DCS, when it absolutely should if the OHP has Mk 13 GMLS). The Krivak II could perform double the number of intercepts with its SA-N-4 systems, if it places the target on the ship's beam. It would also unmask the 2 AK-100 guns (if they would engage airborne targets). The Slava's close-in weapons systems have an aft blind zone and the SA-N-6's FCR is masked directly forward at low altitude, the SA-N-4 is also masked directly forward. Placing the threat on the ship's beam allows all 3 weapon systems to engage, maximising the chances of interception. Notes: While the behaviour has changed somewhat, AI ships still don't respect weapon release settings in terms of quantity, attack quantity or group attack. See this thread. Nearly every naval gun currently in DCS should have dual purpose capability, often firing dedicated rounds. The AK-176 can fire the ZS-62 projectile, which contains 400 g of AI-X-2 explosive, with an AR-51L radar proximity fuse that functions up to 8 m away from the target. The AK-100, AK-130, Mark 75 and Mark 45 guns all have proximity-fused rounds available. Unfortunately, with a single exception, they all are only capable of engaging surface targets, with a high-explosive, impact-fused round. See this thread. Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack1.trk Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack2.trk

If there is one livery I would absolutely love to have when the US Navy's F-4 Phantom comes out is definitely this one. I mean, look at that nose art! Gotta be my favourite. Someone already did it for War Thunder: https://live.warthunder.com/post/946019/en/

Hi everyone, Something I've never been satisfied with is how DCS names units in the unit listing. It often doesn't use full names, or specific variants, won't include things like NATO reporting names, or even occasionally gets the name wrong. 2.7 did change things a lot, and it largely made things a bit more consistent, but for me it still missed a few things and in some cases it changed for the worse IMO. What I was in the process of doing, is editing the default .lua files in the database folder of DCS and changing the display names I was then going to bundle them into a folder for a mod, and see what people thought of it. Unfortunately in 2.7, all of those files got hidden and so I'm now unable to do that. At the moment I've only done the ground and naval units, and for English localisation. I'm pretty much okay with the aircraft as they are, and if I were to make any changes they'd be more minor. The only other one I was going to do is the weapons so it's a bit tidier and more consistent, but I'm going to gauge that on this thread. Another thing I might do is propose a change to the sub categories too, but I'll leave that to a new thread. I still might tinker around with it, so watch this space for edits, what I currently have in mind is rearranging NATO reporting names and native names for ships, as well as putting the approximate year the ship is a representation of. Anything I've marked with a square bracket and a number is in the spoiler below. I know this is a very nitpicky, rivet-counter-esque request, but let me know what your thoughts on it are, do you like what I've done and prefer it? Do you prefer the current system? Do you prefer the old system? Is there anything you'd do differently? And of course, if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and I'll make an edit. Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.xlsx

Wishlist for naval helis: Super Lynx Mk.21A/B Sea sprite/super sea sprite Sea hawk Sea Dragon/Sea Stallion Sea Knight UH-1Y Oh, and Ka-27

See track. The intention of the mission (which would take place at night) is for the armed speedboat to fire at the superstructure of the tanker. The closest I have come to realizing this is to get the speedboat to fire at a point, which I think would work if the altitude option worked. Instead it just fires at the waterline. The fire at point altitude option works for all AAA units I have tried, why not make it work for all units? The more options we have to edit missions the better! Fire at point altitude.trk

Well, the title of the sub-forum is WISHlist. So if a time comes in some indeterminant future where we have Battleships and Heavy Cruisers I would LOVE to see an OS2U Kingfisher. Take a cat shot off the fantail of an Iowa or Alaska class on WWII SAR Missions for downed pilots, bomb submarines, spot and fire direct 16in Naval guns, return to water land and get craned aboard. I'd sign up for ALL of that.

Hi everyone, A fairly long standing bug - AI naval units do not respect attack quantity, group attack or release quantity as set in the mission editor, when firing anti-ship missiles. In the first attached track, I have 3 Tarantul IIIs in line abreast, with a single Ticonderoga 60 nmi to the south-south-west. I have an attack group task for the Tarantul IIIs, set to attack the CG 47, the settings I've used are as follows: Weapon Type: Antiship missile (though the same is true if set to guided or missiles) Release Quantity: All Max Attack Quantity: 1 (i.e. fire one salvo) Group Attack: True The objective being to get all 3 Tarantul IIIs to each fire their 4 SS-N-22s at the single Ticonderoga, firing as one large salvo. However, in the track, the AI will only fire salvos of 4 missiles (which use a single shooter, or multiple shooters) and instead of firing one salvo, the AI follows up with subsequent salvos of 4 missiles, once the preceding 4 have been destroyed). This presents a tactical problem that's fairly easy for a CG 47 to solve, certainly easier than 12 missiles, split across 3 axis. In the second track, I have 2 Tiger-class FACs and I want it to fire 2 missiles (which should be MM38 Exocet Block 1, not RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C) at the single Krivak II to the north. I only want one shooter per salvo and one salvo. Following the above, the settings I've used is as follows: Weapon Type: Antiship missile (though the same is true if set to guided or missiles) Release Quantity: Two Max Attack Quantity: 1 (i.e. fire one salvo) Group Attack: False However, again, a salvo of 4 missiles is fired, with both ships shooting, instead of 2 missiles being fired by one ship. This was then followed up by a second salvo (though this time with one missile, as the Krivak had sank). While 3 missiles are required to sink the Krivak II with the current damage model, I only wanted 2 missiles to be fired (and this problem arises regardless of the target - 5 missiles being fired against say a Grisha-V or a Tarantul III would be excessive, given the limited self-defence capabilities these ships possess). Another thing that can be seen at the end this track, is the 5th missile appearing to track a ship that was fully submerged, indicating that missile seekers aren't properly implemented. This was reported to the forums 2 years ago by another user and presumably affects all anti-ship missiles not using the new API (and at time of writing, only the AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C, exclusively fired by the F/A-18C Lot 20 (it should also feature on the AI B-52H, F/A-18C, and S-3B at least) has a higher fidelity seeker model). In both cases, it can be seen that: The AI does not respect release quantity - the AI will only fire 4 missiles per salvo (excluding cases where less than 4 missiles remain or the target is destroyed before the AI can complete its salvo). This is unlike AI aircraft where the AI will fire as many weapons as set, regardless of whether they're singletons or groups. The AI does not respect attack quantity settings - the AI will continue firing salvos of missiles until the target is destroyed or the task is cancelled. The AI does not respect group attack settings - the AI will either have multiple shooters per salvo or a single shooter per salvo. All 3 of these are respected by aircraft, where they behave as expected for what is set. AI_attack_qty_group_rel_qty1.trk AI_attack_qty_group_rel_qty2.trk

We have 45 naval assets in the game as of September 25, 2024. Most of the newer ones look very good (i.e. Chinese and South Atlantic assets, all carriers). Unfortunately, most of the civilian and Russian models look extremely outdated. Any chance of a model/texture update for the following ships? Battlecruiser 1144.2 Boat Zvedny Bulker Yakushev Cargo Ivanov Corvette 1124.4 Corvette 1241.1 Cruiser 1164 Frigate 1135M Frigate 11540 They do not have to be 8k and every bolt is modeled, just bring them into this decade. Also, is it possible to remove the old Kuznetsov? Finally, I would like to plead for a few more ships. For naval warfare, this area is extremely lacking. There have been some great additions in recent years, and I look forward to more. Maybe some more American ships from the Cold War era (battleships anyone???)?