World War III module?

[Vampyre]

"The most detailed and realistic simulations of machines used in a fictitious war".

 

That's the idea, I'd like to get a feel of how it might have turned out... even though I'm pretty sure the USSR and WP would have really ravaged NATO. Also, even with maps and modules that depict actual wars, the end result is fictitious anyway.

[VincentLaw]

"The most detailed and realistic simulations of machines used in a fictitious war".

The DCS already has fictitious campaigns, so it wouldn't really be any different. DCS is a systems simulator, not a history simulator.

[SkateZilla]

Technically there's no history to simulate since WWIII in the 80s never happened.

[CheckGear]

Technically there's no history to simulate since WWIII in the 80s never happened.

 

While there is no history to simulate, what you can simulate is the realism and details of the platforms that were in service during this time, along with the units that were in service in the theater at that time.

[MBot]

No playable simulation can be completely historical accurate anyway, as that would exclude any free player interaction :) Of course there can be various degrees of historical accuracy, from watching a predefined animation, to fictiously play a historical mission, historical campaign, historical war or historical war plans.

 

I thin that "the war that never was" is extremely interesting. We more or less know the specificunits and eqipment that would have participated, tactics that would have been used (or at least tried). For 40 years the two major power blocks in the world have planned and prepared for that war, deploying millions of men, spending billions of dollars, developing new weapons. Thankfully the war never happened for real, but I would love play it :)

[xaoslaad]

Except WWII: Europe is not a module. It is a separate installation from DCS World. Two is bad enough. I really don't want to have to separately install everything three times (extrapolate to N times) on my computer and run different .exe files to play any module on different maps.

 

What I would support is a date/category tag system applied to everything, so that when you create or select a mission, you can filter missions by date. Then when you run DCS: 1975, you get the 1975 interface with 1975 filters set by default, but it should still get the module/map data from the same directory.

 

I still think this whole fiasco about module versus separate install was not very clear in the kickstarter. Regardless, module activation is just a registry key from what I can tell, especially with the advent of the open beta and not having to reactivate stuff, so their promise to let you fly any aircraft in either seems reasonable... so then why not just make wwii a module to install, or let wwii install without the 'world' stuff if they want to have a separate installer. It makes no sense that _anything_ would not be a module. Essentially, pick your base, Modern or WWII, and install. If you want the other grab the module for it, so I'm just being patient and hoping they do something intelligent.

[Revan]

I think that a cool WWIII type mission would be that, you have to go and stop a certain side from taking control of a missile silo, or a Bomber airbase and if they do, either bombers take off (armed with nukes of course) and you have to kill them, or the missile launches from the silo and you die.

[NineLine]

Was are WWIII missions automatically nuke baring missions?

[Scrim]

I think that a cool WWIII type mission would be that, you have to go and stop a certain side from taking control of a missile silo, or a Bomber airbase and if they do, either bombers take off (armed with nukes of course) and you have to kill them, or the missile launches from the silo and you die.

 

I completely fail to see any sort of simulation aspect in such a scenario, as it just would not ever, ever, ever, ever happen no matter what IRL.

[Yellonet]

I always end up thinking of Dr. Strangelove when WW3 is discussed.

A funny movie, sure, but quite scary too.

 

And you never know what will happen if things keep going as they do...

[blackbelter]

The DCS already has fictitious campaigns, so it wouldn't really be any different. DCS is a systems simulator, not a history simulator.

 

That I know. My point is that there is no point labeling anything 'DCS: WWIII'. That sounds like a game developed by EA.

[NineLine]

That I know. My point is that there is no point labeling anything 'DCS: WWIII'. That sounds like a game developed by EA.

 

 

 

Errrrr.... DCS WWII?

[blackbelter]

Errrrr.... DCS WWII?

 

In contrary to WWIII, WWII is real...

[NineLine]

In contrary to WWIII, WWII is real...

 

Well give humans a little more time would ya ;)

[Vampyre]

Well give humans a little more time would ya ;)

 

Indeed... it's in our nature evidently.

[ZaltysZ]

Well give humans a little more time would ya ;)

 

I hope I won't be given enough time to see that :smilewink:

[blackbelter]

It's like what was said in the new movie 'The Wind Rises', flying is a beautiful dream of the human kind, but it is also a cursed one, for beautiful airplanes are built to kill.

 

Fortunately humans are capable of being hypocritical. They do what the major character in the Movie did: pretend that killing never happened, and continue to build his 'beautiful' killing machine.

[MBot]

My point is that there is no point labeling anything 'DCS: WWIII'. That sounds like a game developed by EA.

 

Frankly I do not get your point, what is so bad about the labeling WWIII?

 

The US Navy called it the "global conventional war" in their strategy papers, but I think there is little doubt that this war would have been generally named World War III if it happened.

[blackbelter]

Frankly I do not get your point, what is so bad about the labeling WWIII?

 

The US Navy called it the "global conventional war" in their strategy papers, but I think there is little doubt that this war would have been generally named World War III if it happened.

 

Name ONE element in official DCS description that is fictitious in nature. I am afraid you can't do it, because realism is DCS's thing. Campaigns can be anything, fictitious or realistic, but the official description of ED products has always been focusing on realism.

 

What's the difference between DCS: (insert your aircraft name here) and DCS WWIII: (inset your aircraft name here)? Other than the name, there is no difference if it is about the same aircraft. So what does it bring to label DCS products WWIII? Nothing.

 

I don't know about other people. But if one day DCS WWIII materializes, I would wonder: Huh? Is ED taking the route of EA?

Edited March 21, 2014 by blackbelter

[MBot]

Name ONE element in official DCS description that is fictitious in nature. I am afraid you can't do it, because realism is DCS's thing. Campaigns can be anything, fictitious or realistic, but the official description of ED products has always been focusing on realism.

 

I still don't see the point. You agree that "campaigns can be anything, fictitious or realistic". So where is the difference between flying the A-10C over Russia in 2014 than let's say a F-111 over Poland in 1986?

 

 

 

As why WWIII could be a separate label, I would say primary as an expression of will to create and complete a consistent scenario. I am quite unhappy with the route DCS has taken, with a Mustang here, a Huey there and everything slapped into the Caucasus or Nevada. It feels like combat FSX, a collection of random stuff thrown together (so far for the realism of DCS...). I hear many people say that with time, everything will come togheter. How naive do you have to be to belief that there will be so many independent aircraft and terrain modules that a single conistent combat scenario will spontanously consolidate within the lifespan of DCS? That is why I would welcome a WWIII label, as it would provide some guidance to create a limited number of maps, aircraft and AI units to fit togheter into a consistent scenario.

[blackbelter]

I still don't see the point. You agree that "campaigns can be anything, fictitious or realistic". So where is the difference between flying the A-10C over Russia in 2014 than let's say a F-111 over Poland in 1986?

 

 

 

As why WWIII could be a separate label, I would say primary as an expression of will to create and complete a consistent scenario. I am quite unhappy with the route DCS has taken, with a Mustang here, a Huey there and everything slapped into the Caucasus or Nevada. It feels like combat FSX, a collection of random stuff thrown together (so far for the realism of DCS...). I hear many people say that with time, everything will come togheter. How naive do you have to be to belief that there will be so many independent aircraft and terrain modules that a single conistent combat scenario will spontanously consolidate within the lifespan of DCS? That is why I would welcome a WWIII label, as it would provide some guidance to create a limited number of maps, aircraft and AI units to fit togheter into a consistent scenario.

 

My point is simple. In one sentence: DCS does not need to be historically correct, but deliberately being historically wrong is counter-productive. As people already mentioned, the realism of DCS is on the mechanical level but not on the historic level, but forcing a fictitious label into the official DCS title is counter-productive. It brings nothing new or essential, and kills the realism OFFICIALLY.

 

As for guidance to create maps and campaigns, believe me, people don't need this little guidance. As long as the opposing aircrafts are there, people will creat appropriate scenarios for them.

 

If one day ED and third parties have created enough planes of the era, and decide to collect them into a separate install, there are better (in terms of realism) labels for them.

[MBot]

Well then your major gripe seems to be that the name (and only the name) WWIII would somehow make DCS less realistic. Of course that is an oppinion one can have, though I do not understand it. I do wonder though how you feel about the label "Flaming Cliffs", which is simply pure nonsense :)

 

As for guidance to create maps and campaigns, believe me, people don't need this little guidance. As long as the opposing aircrafts are there, people will creat appropriate scenarios for them.

 

DCS currently features the Ka-50, the A-10C, UH-1H and the P-51D in the Caucasus. Next products are most likely the F-86, AH-1G, MiG-21Bis, Mirage 2000C and Nevada. It is my personal oppinion that some more guidance and coordination would not hurt. For those that want a combat FSX this is great I guess, but unfortunately it is not what I am looking for.

[Vampyre]

Sounds silly to argue about a name for a module that in all likelihood won't be built at all. If it is made, whoever makes the "WWIII" module will give it a name that will garner instant recognition to gain as many sales as possible.

As for a separate install for all of the different modules, I really hope they do not do that. I would like to have one install that I will be able to fly all of the eras of flight on simply by selecting the aircraft, year and map that I want to fly. I don't want to fight a Su-27 in a F4U Corsair... I want era and region specific enemies to fight. The second you start breaking the game into different installs is when your community gets fractured and that is not a good thing with the size of the flight sim community as a whole.

[VincentLaw]

It is my personal opinion that some more guidance and coordination would not hurt. For those that want a combat FSX this is great I guess, but unfortunately it is not what I am looking for.

Allowing third party devs to make aircraft from any period they want makes DCS a more attractive platform for third parties. Attracting more developers will probably get a single time period filled out with modules faster than enforcing restricted focus to that specific period would. We all have seen how long it takes ED to develop modules by themselves.

[Vampyre]

Allowing third party devs to make aircraft from any period they want makes DCS a more attractive platform for third parties. Attracting more developers will probably get a single time period filled out with modules faster than enforcing restricted focus to that specific period would. We all have seen how long it takes ED to develop modules by themselves.

 

Indeed, It is really exciting to see third parties working on all of their different aircraft. The MiG-21Bis that will be out soon is a perfect addition to a mid 70's-80's WWIII conflict. I can't wait to get my hands on that.