Cold War 1947 - 1991

[MMI_Grim]

As long as Im off the scope Im happy with the limited AA-weapons I have when flying the Hind.

If the last red fighters perish that might change.

[Alphaless]

On 4/15/2022 at 3:12 PM, irgendjemand said:

I think they would be a good addition. It would allow some interesting fights between helicopters and jets and give the hind a way to defend itself against jets which I´ve experienced to be very necessary if the server/ the red side isn´t very populated and there are no MiG's to support the helicopters.

 

6 hours ago, MMI_Grim said:

As long as Im off the scope Im happy with the limited AA-weapons I have when flying the Hind.

If the last red fighters perish that might change.

I think the topic of the lack of Red pilots is definitely relevant here like you guys have said. It's really a shame that Blue is often more more populated, but if the trend continues I think this definitely can be taken into consideration.
 

On 4/15/2022 at 3:40 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

Only if both sides have Hinds. That would be fun to see.

As much as I like the asymmetric units I think this is one of the best available options to close the rotary gap a little bit between the sides and a way to simplify the balance a bit overall. 

Hard to gauge balance without any testing but I appreciate hearing all of your opinions on the matter. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, Alphaless said:

I think the topic of the lack of Red pilots is definitely relevant here like you guys have said. It's really a shame that Blue is often more more populated, but if the trend continues I think this definitely can be taken into consideration.
 

As much as I like the asymmetric units I think this is one of the best available options to close the rotary gap a little bit between the sides and a way to simplify the balance a bit overall. 

Hard to gauge balance without any testing but I appreciate hearing all of your opinions on the matter. 

The lack of red fighter pilots has basically killed the server. They all went where things are easier, I guess. Adding R-60's to the Hind isn't going to help that situation.

We need some missions with Blue equipment on both sides or something. I am very sad to see the population migrate elsewhere.

[MMI_Grim]

The major issue is that blue has a dedicated GCI and red seldom get a random doing it.

Thats like boxing blindfolded. 

2nd biggest problem imho is a lack of willingness of blue regulars to play red regardless of player stack ...at least most of the time.

Blue equipment on red would maybe bring blue regulars to red, but no red regulars back on the server.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, MMI_Grim said:

The major issue is that blue has a dedicated GCI and red seldom get a random doing it.

Thats like boxing blindfolded. 

2nd biggest problem imho is a lack of willingness of blue regulars to play red regardless of player stack ...at least most of the time.

Blue equipment on red would maybe bring blue regulars to red, but no red regulars back on the server.

This is part of why I want Blue equipment on both sides. It alleviates the "Red has no dedicated GCI" whine completely. 

As for Blue regulars playing Red, using Blue equipment for both sides solves the main issue with flying Red, (for us in any case). If we have aircraft we enjoy flying, we will ALWAYS fly on the low numbers side. The problem is we don't enjoy the Mig-21 even though it is more capable than the F-5.

I know there would be friendly fire issues but I would rather deal with friendly fire than an empty server.

[Alphaless]

17 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The problem is we don't enjoy the Mig-21 even though it is more capable than the F-5.

Right on target here. I think that equipment preference plays almost as much of a role in low red player counts as much as the lack of a GCI does. Not hard to see why, its inherently more difficult to fly MiGs. Unfortunately this is a problem that cannot be addressed directly if the intention is to keep the vehicles different.

Perhaps we could see a mission with symmetric equipment and see how that translates to the teams. 

[MMI_Grim]

I dont see how that alleviates a lack of GCI on red.

Maybe just bite the bullet and fly the bit less enjoy- or capable bird then? Maybe the 19?

I enjoy the Viggen the most, still Im in a Hind 90% of the time thinking better flying not the first choice then killing the server.

If this server changes to some red and blue in name only with the same gear on both sides, its completly changes its core thats realism driven.

[=475FG= Dawger]

16 hours ago, Alphaless said:

Right on target here. I think that equipment preference plays almost as much of a role in low red player counts as much as the lack of a GCI does. Not hard to see why, its inherently more difficult to fly MiGs. Unfortunately this is a problem that cannot be addressed directly if the intention is to keep the vehicles different.

Perhaps we could see a mission with symmetric equipment and see how that translates to the teams. 

Migs are not more difficult. They are just not designed to be pleasant to fly. A different design philosophy.

There isn't a shortage of Mig pilots in DCS. In fact, quite often during European evening time, there are more Mig-21 pilots populating the Cold War era servers than F-5 pilots. 

So the issue is one of migration, not shortage.

Red pilots have decided to play elsewhere and blame it on one blue player.

[=475FG= Dawger]

15 hours ago, MMI_Grim said:

I dont see how that alleviates a lack of GCI on red.

Maybe just bite the bullet and fly the bit less enjoy- or capable bird then? Maybe the 19?

I enjoy the Viggen the most, still Im in a Hind 90% of the time thinking better flying not the first choice then killing the server.

If this server changes to some red and blue in name only with the same gear on both sides, its completly changes its core thats realism driven.

Realism and history are too different things. Historically, the two sides had different equipment in the Cold War. However, the server does not stick to history. If it did, we would be shooting at each other a lot less.

There exists a population of players with a preference for Blue equipment who enjoy a challenging fight. There does not seem to be a similar group among those who prefer Red equipment. So instead of an empty server, I propose splitting the existing Blue population so we can fight each other.

I don't have any hope that the Red players who supposedly left because of one Blue player would ever come back to a harder server when there is an easier populated choice.

[rossmum]

"Migration" is overstated, at least when it comes to the core population. A few regulars do play elsewhere now, but many of them no longer play at all, or have been unable to play as often at the hours the server tends to populate (for example, I've barely been able to play more than twice a week at the usual hours for some time now, and the past couple of times nobody has been on either team). Some of the most active red players have simply been busy with other things and when they go, the rest will tend to fly less as we usually enjoy flying with each other. I've been hearing about migration for months now but I'm rarely seeing more than 2-3 familiar names on the player list of the server people usually single out, and they aren't always red players, either - if anything I think I see more familiar blue names there.

What the server needs is enough players on during prime time to hit critical mass, at which point transient players will start joining again. There are plenty of people who say they'd play the server but it's never populated when they're around, but few with the time or patience to sit in it until more people join, unfortunately. In some respects the set piece nature of the missions probably factors in as well, although it's great for holding onto players once they do join - it's harder to just pick up and play for a few sorties.

I also very much doubt it's to do with it being "easier", as having to deal with AIM-9P5s is anything but that. The general skill level is lower but the airspace is crowded, all-aspect weapons are in play (and in that regard the 9P5 is absolutely top dog), and GCI coverage can be spotty as well. The real ease in that regard is it being easier to jump on for 20-30 mins and find action, which probably appeals more to those with limited play time.

Edited April 19, 2022 by rossmum

[Miccara]

On 4/15/2022 at 3:00 PM, Alphaless said:

Given that ED is about to implement R60 support on the Hinds, I'm just curious about all of your takes on them possibly being allowed in this server. Personally speaking, I think they're unnecessary, but I'd love to hear others' opinions on it. 

No.
Hinds are already too powerful and too difficult. We have nothing to really take them out. Perhaps put them in one mission in rotation, and give us Gazelle Mistral's with air-to-air.

While we're at it... make up a mission removing all the equipment/viewing restrictions we normally play with and put it in the rotation. This will bring in some new players that like the "easy" game. Maybe they'll stick around for the other missions and learn to enjoy them, too.

P.S.
I have been playing Red in the Mi8 almost 50% of the time over the last week. For the most part I look at which side needs players and that's where I now tend to go. Mike-Delta has also been switching sides lately. I still say cooperation and communication is far greater when on the Blue side, but maybe with us changing sides more often, this will improve? It'll be nice to hear Blue complaining about my work (but I'm betting they won't).

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Miccara

[=475FG= Dawger]

16 hours ago, rossmum said:

"Migration" is overstated, at least when it comes to the core population. A few regulars do play elsewhere now, but many of them no longer play at all, or have been unable to play as often at the hours the server tends to populate (for example, I've barely been able to play more than twice a week at the usual hours for some time now, and the past couple of times nobody has been on either team). Some of the most active red players have simply been busy with other things and when they go, the rest will tend to fly less as we usually enjoy flying with each other. I've been hearing about migration for months now but I'm rarely seeing more than 2-3 familiar names on the player list of the server people usually single out, and they aren't always red players, either - if anything I think I see more familiar blue names there.

What the server needs is enough players on during prime time to hit critical mass, at which point transient players will start joining again. There are plenty of people who say they'd play the server but it's never populated when they're around, but few with the time or patience to sit in it until more people join, unfortunately. In some respects the set piece nature of the missions probably factors in as well, although it's great for holding onto players once they do join - it's harder to just pick up and play for a few sorties.

I also very much doubt it's to do with it being "easier", as having to deal with AIM-9P5s is anything but that. The general skill level is lower but the airspace is crowded, all-aspect weapons are in play (and in that regard the 9P5 is absolutely top dog), and GCI coverage can be spotty as well. The real ease in that regard is it being easier to jump on for 20-30 mins and find action, which probably appeals more to those with limited play time.

 

So, the position of the Cold War 1947-1991 server administrator is that the server regulars concurrently decided to quit playing, or had concurrent schedule changes and only a "few" regularly play over "there". And, also, defending what basically amounts to "Just Dogfight" gameplay as definitely not "easier".

I guess I should take the hint and find something else to do.

Cheers. 

It was fun while it lasted.

[Alphaless]

23 hours ago, rossmum said:

I also very much doubt it's to do with it being "easier", as having to deal with AIM-9P5s is anything but that. The general skill level is lower but the airspace is crowded, all-aspect weapons are in play (and in that regard the 9P5 is absolutely top dog), and GCI coverage can be spotty as well. The real ease in that regard is it being easier to jump on for 20-30 mins and find action, which probably appeals more to those with limited play time.

I don't think the 9P5 is as impactful as you say it is. It's only available to the A-10 in some of the missions in rotation, and in considerably limited quantities. The vast majority of missiles being employed are more conventional rear-aspect sticks. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the Su-25 gets R-60Ms as well, which are equally, if not more nasty than the 9P5. Perhaps the 9P5 gets more of the spotlight because I haven't seen as many Frogfoot pilots in comparison to A-10 pilots. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Alphaless

[Miccara]

Occasional players dislike not being able to see themselves on the F10 map. I'd gamble this is a significant obstacle for many players.

 

[rossmum]

19 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

So, the position of the Cold War 1947-1991 server administrator is that the server regulars concurrently decided to quit playing, or had concurrent schedule changes and only a "few" regularly play over "there". And, also, defending what basically amounts to "Just Dogfight" gameplay as definitely not "easier".

I guess I should take the hint and find something else to do.

Cheers. 

It was fun while it lasted.

The attitude isn't doing any of us, or the server, any favours.

Transient players are only part of the problem, and doubtless other servers will draw them away. On the other hand, this server had a pretty committed core of redfor pilots. Some have come and gone over the years, but I recognise names. I know when I am or am not seeing them go to the "other" server - and like I said, every time I have looked, I rarely see more than two or three at the same hours they would previously have been on this server. I have been playing here for nearly four years on and off, two years of that almost exclusively, frequently 3-4 days a week. I get to know names.

The Russians are turning up in lesser numbers, perhaps we can guess why. The Bulgarians have mostly disappeared, I've only seen two or three of them on here recently and I know some of them have been playing more modern stuff recently. Zach is finishing school. I've been busy with things outside of DCS. Kirk has been on hiatus for quite a while now and as a result, one of our main GCIs is gone. The Vodka guys have been on less frequently and partly due to real world concerns. There are a couple of regular redfor guys I see on Enigma's server from time to time, but it isn't enough to explain where the whole team has gone - and considering most of those in question were the same guys who used to take 21s up to hunt Tomcats and Mirage 2000s, back when the latter was on the server, I think it's pretty safe to say that it isn't out of fear of a challenge.

People burn out or have real life things come up. We can sit here all day and moan about our players being pressganged away from us by other servers but at the end of the day, that neither fixes the problem, nor has any resemblance to what's actually happened.

Perhaps if we want to talk about things being easier, I'd like to know where my R-3Rs went.

11 hours ago, Alphaless said:

I don't think the 9P5 is as impactful as you say it is. It's only available to the A-10 in some of the missions in rotation, and in considerably limited quantities. The vast majority of missiles being employed are more conventional rear-aspect sticks. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the Su-25 gets R-60Ms as well, which are equally, if not more nasty than the 9P5. Perhaps the 9P5 gets more of the spotlight because I haven't seen as many Frogfoot pilots in comparison to A-10 pilots. 

 

The sole advantage the R-60M has is its close-range turning ability - it has a worse seeker (and thus far worse front aspect capability), shorter range, worse flare rejection, and a weaker warhead. If you gave me a choice between the two missiles I know which I would pick, I wish I could strap the 9P5 to my 21. It isn't an easy I-win button like people make out, but it is pretty undeniably the superior missile and it forces some adaptation to beat. I would say the main threat comes from being third partied by it from someone you didn't see, purely because of the larger engagement envelope it provides and the almost smokeless motor.

For what it's worth - I brought it up in reference to another server. Here I don't think it's that big a factor at all, though it was a rude shock when you reminded me that they are available to A-10s

10 hours ago, Miccara said:

Occasional players dislike not being able to see themselves on the F10 map. I'd gamble this is a significant obstacle for many players.

It's the single most common excuse I've heard for why people say how much they want to play here, but then never actually do it. Personally I prefer it being disabled, and I try to drill into people that it only takes 3 minutes to learn to use something like TACAN or RSBN, and then you'll never need the F10 map again. There's even still the ability to mark current position and rough heading on the kneeboard (which cannot even be turned off). Allowing F10 ownship position might bring some new blood in, or it might not - the excuse might become something else. I dunno, maybe it's worth trying for a bit if nothing else.

Edited April 21, 2022 by rossmum

[rossmum]

On 4/20/2022 at 11:31 AM, Miccara said:

No.
Hinds are already too powerful and too difficult. We have nothing to really take them out. Perhaps put them in one mission in rotation, and give us Gazelle Mistral's with air-to-air.

While we're at it... make up a mission removing all the equipment/viewing restrictions we normally play with and put it in the rotation. This will bring in some new players that like the "easy" game. Maybe they'll stick around for the other missions and learn to enjoy them, too.

P.S.
I have been playing Red in the Mi8 almost 50% of the time over the last week. For the most part I look at which side needs players and that's where I now tend to go. Mike-Delta has also been switching sides lately. I still say cooperation and communication is far greater when on the Blue side, but maybe with us changing sides more often, this will improve? It'll be nice to hear Blue complaining about my work (but I'm betting they won't).

The Gazelle Mistral is its own can of worms - quite aside from the helicopter's FM, there's also the missiles themselves. They lock instantly, to the point you can just hold the trigger and wave the nose past someone and they'll be out of the tube before you even hear tone. They also seem to not lose speed to air friction, which is a problem its other weapons share.

The R-60M (I'm guessing it won't get the no-index 60s as they're a Magnitude 3 weapon made for the 21) has a whole separate control box and takes up the same pylons you'd use for ATGMs - in addition to that, from a 200-300km/h launch speed against a fighter flying at 600+, you're looking at a very short range, less than the ATGMs. I don't think they're going to be as effective as most of the community believes, since the R-60M already frequently fails to track other helicopters and a hit against an F-5 would require a very cooperative target flying right at you, very close across your nose, or overshooting and then crossing your nose rather than pulling up. This will need to be borne out by testing once they're available, but if I was a betting man, I'd put some money on them being less of a threat to oblivious passing aircraft than the ATGMs are, and mostly useful against careless overshoots, or maybe an A-10 who hasn't seen you. Couple that with the size and lack of agility of the helicopter and I don't think they'll be quite the mobile SAM turret that the Mistral has been.

What I would say is a no-no, though I don't recall if we have them on any missions here, is the 9M220O.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

- Operation Battle Over Sukhumi Unleashed kicks off this Saturday, 24.04.2022, around 1800 zulu.
- Operation Bandar 1949 kicks off this Sunday, 25.04.2022, around 1800 zulu.

[Miccara]

6 hours ago, rossmum said:

The Gazelle Mistral is its own can of worms - quite aside from the helicopter's FM, there's also the missiles themselves. They lock instantly, to the point you can just hold the trigger and wave the nose past someone and they'll be out of the tube before you even hear tone. They also seem to not lose speed to air friction, which is a problem its other weapons share.

The R-60M (I'm guessing it won't get the no-index 60s as they're a Magnitude 3 weapon made for the 21) has a whole separate control box and takes up the same pylons you'd use for ATGMs - in addition to that, from a 200-300km/h launch speed against a fighter flying at 600+, you're looking at a very short range, less than the ATGMs. I don't think they're going to be as effective as most of the community believes, since the R-60M already frequently fails to track other helicopters and a hit against an F-5 would require a very cooperative target flying right at you, very close across your nose, or overshooting and then crossing your nose rather than pulling up. This will need to be borne out by testing once they're available, but if I was a betting man, I'd put some money on them being less of a threat to oblivious passing aircraft than the ATGMs are, and mostly useful against careless overshoots, or maybe an A-10 who hasn't seen you. Couple that with the size and lack of agility of the helicopter and I don't think they'll be quite the mobile SAM turret that the Mistral has been.

What I would say is a no-no, though I don't recall if we have them on any missions here, is the 9M220O.

"I guess, I'm guessing, I don't think, I'd put some money on them being less of a threat"
We can agree to disagree on this. So, no air-to-air for the Gazelle because it’s missiles are better?  The Russian helos are already an advantage for Red.  This will just make it worse for Blue. Just like the F5 guys don’t want to fly maps where Migs are armed with face-to-face missiles, few are going to want to fly Huey’s anywhere near the Hinds, and Gazelle pilots are already very few and far between. There are 10 guys willing fly Hinds for ever 1 guy in a gazelle.  Maybe air-to-air for the gazelle will bring more folks to it.  R-60M inclusion with no uptick for blue… It’ll be a mistake on Cold War but, maybe I’m wrong.  I don’t think so.  

Edited April 21, 2022 by Miccara

[Alphaless]

11 hours ago, rossmum said:

The sole advantage the R-60M has is its close-range turning ability - it has a worse seeker (and thus far worse front aspect capability), shorter range, worse flare rejection, and a weaker warhead. If you gave me a choice between the two missiles I know which I would pick, I wish I could strap the 9P5 to my 21. It isn't an easy I-win button like people make out, but it is pretty undeniably the superior missile and it forces some adaptation to beat. I would say the main threat comes from being third partied by it from someone you didn't see, purely because of the larger engagement envelope it provides and the almost smokeless motor.

For what it's worth - I brought it up in reference to another server. Here I don't think it's that big a factor at all, though it was a rude shock when you reminded me that they are available to A-10s

Fair point. 

I suppose a positive consequence of my polite reminder is that you will expect it next time. I can't always get away with face-shooting. 

[Tvrdi]

I always balance teams. If less red I fly mig21, probably one of the 3 most fun modules in DCS. Tricky is fun. If less blue I fly Viggen in AA setting because F5 is boring and not challeging. Hopefully Mirage F1 will make things more interesting for blue.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Tvrdi

[rossmum]

6 hours ago, Miccara said:

"I guess, I'm guessing, I don't think, I'd put some money on them being less of a threat"
We can agree to disagree on this. So, no air-to-air for the Gazelle because it’s missiles are better?  The Russian helos are already an advantage for Red.  This will just make it worse for Blue. Just like the F5 guys don’t want to fly maps where Migs are armed with face-to-face missiles, few are going to want to fly Huey’s anywhere near the Hinds, and Gazelle pilots are already very few and far between. There are 10 guys willing fly Hinds for ever 1 guy in a gazelle.  Maybe air-to-air for the gazelle will bring more folks to it.  R-60M inclusion with no uptick for blue… It’ll be a mistake on Cold War but, maybe I’m wrong.  I don’t think so. 

I don't think they should be added right away anyway - I'm spitballing pretty much. Once I get my hands on them I'll try and do some testing to see how effective they actually are versus jets or helicopters, and then compare to what the Hind can already do with its ATGMs. With the helicopters no longer visible to GCI they may not end up being necessary for self-defence, which is going to be their main utility I think.

The Mistral issue is one that requires fixing from Polychop to change... if the helicopter disobeyed physics less, if the missiles actually required even a brief amount of lock time before firing, if they showed believable deceleration, etc. I'd be less against it. The last time they were on the server (and on every other server which has them available) they were used as mobile anti-air turrets while being exceptionally hard for anything to kill in return, since they're hard to see and nearly impossible to hit while doing backflips. It's a pity, but it's the limitation we're working with.

Red definitely have the better attack helicopter (really, the only attack helicopter) right now, but remember, it's offset in other ways - I'd kill to have literally anything equivalent to the Maverick. We can work around our lack of fire-and-forget, but it makes attacking heavily defended areas a lot more directly risky. Swings and roundabouts.

[Zachrix]

HE DON'T MISS @rossmum

[Alphaless]

Had a great time on Bandar tonight. Theres some solace in not having to worry about R-60s and AIM-9s in these knife fights, though I always found myself being at the mercy of those MiG pilots who did an excellent job controlling the skirmishes. Maybe I'll be ready for them next time. 

[Enigma89]

I am joining this discussion late but I just want to add my perspective. It is very much my wish that both Cold War servers do well. My server is just one server doing it one way, Alpen is another server doing it another way. Both deserve to exist in the space and both can work to build a player base large enough to direct this game toward fleshing out the cold war era. 

This perception that one server is killing the other is an easy story to make but it's not the case. We were worried about this ourselves and I have two data points to invalidate this theory:

1) Soon after our launch, we saw that the population of both servers combined was well over 70 concurrent players. This is a good thing.

2) We did a statistical analysis based on a player survey and confirmed that there was a higher chance that a player came to my server from a non-alpenwolf server rather than alpen's server. The majority of our players have actually never played Alpen's server. This was an analysis done in January and was done by our stats person (you can see it here and get the full story in 8 minutes). A pretty sizable part of our population is actually coming from IL-2 which is what I primarily play. This is surprising but also good. There is an untapped number of players that have shifted to Cold War who were playing other things lately, this isn't a fight over the same playerbase.

There are a lot of externalities that are happening in the world right now. Alpen's server is really focused on the EU timezone and Europe is going through some <profanity> right now, COVID is starting to go away and people are spending more time doing other things, we were all gaming super hard during quarantine. For me personally, I have been playing less lately vs last fall. This is an important point to make because it makes sense when you compare it to Rossmum's experience. Some people are just playing less.

I have already seen some new missions from Alpenwolf that have some draw that I think they really lean into the uniqueness of the server. The A-4 mission was a ton of fun and the Mig-15/F86 mission that he had in PG was also good fun. They also had really good population when they were up and the server was nearly full both times when I got on!

It is very much my hope that the two servers grow together and more cold war servers come. If I had one suggestion it would be to add a text based EWR system like blueflag or use Overlord like we do (you can limit it so it can only see what DCS EWR sees). The over-reliance on GCI, I just don't think is tenable anymore. It upsets the balance terribly and at the end of the day, we are all getting older and we all less have time than we did 5 years ago. I personally thought that sniping EWRs was border line griefing and it used to always kill the server population.

I still play Alpen's server, albeit not as much as before, but I still pop in when I see an interesting mission and I wish this community well. I very much want all the cold war servers to do well and I don't see how anyone from either server could disagree, it's better for all of us. Between this server, mine and Flash Point Levant, there is good momentum to anchor the entire multiplayer community around cold war.

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Enigma89

[Alpenwolf]

When the MiG-21 and the F-5 were released I got more interested in DCS and almost stopped flying any other modules. ACG_IronJockel was the first to put a server out there (or was there someone else I'm not aware of?) and he had one mission only that was restarting every several hours. It had most modules on both sides with the MiG-21 and the F-5 being the only exception. The Su-25T and the A-10C were available too. I wrote a long and detailed pm to ACG_IronJockel suggesting quite a few things. Turned out he wasn't really into DCS that much, which surprised me, and didn't mind me making changes in the mission. For the record, and you, Enigma, coming from IL2 yourself probably know this, the ACG guys are mostly IL2 players. Maybe that's changed now.
I disabled many options (e.g. external views, F10 map, etc.), added Combined Arms, the MiG-15, the F-86, made sure not one module or unit is available for both sides, etc. You know, the stuff you usually find in my missions. Designing more missions was next, then making tournaments and then hosting special events.

It went well for as long as it lasted, but was very impractical the way things were running. After all, I had no access to the server's machine and that held me back quite often. Long story short, we parted ways. I tried not to, simply because I didn't want to host a server myself, make sure it's funded, always up to date, etc., but it was inevitable.

Good old NaCH offered me a server for FREE! Basically, he was paying for it and no one else. That lasted for a year and then I had to start a new server while relying on donations for 50% of the server's costs. There were even months where the donations covered the server's costs entirely and I didn't have to chip in at all.

All the above led to me hoping for a second Cold War server to boost the entire Cold War community, help it grow in numbers, which then would help with the funding and maybe, just maybe generate some interest among developers to work on older jets and helicopters rather than modern stuff. I even thought about hosting another server myself with a complete different concept. It was even suggested to me and some offered their ideas, but that would've had been way too much to handle. Also, and this is not a less important reason, when I started playing DCS and later on hosting, I was still studying and had plenty of time. Now I have a full time job, married and have 3 little buggers Not much time to tend to my DCS stuff any more. Ain't complaining, just saying. Thank God for his blessings!

By the time Enigma's Cold War server was launched the population on the Cold War 1947 - 1991 server started declining. Some went over to Enigma's to check out the new hype which is natural, some stopped playing DCS at all and others had different reasons. A little wonder there were fingers pointed towards you, Enigma, and towards some ex-avid Cold War 1947 - 1991 players. There were some nasty incidents on the Cold War 1947 - 1991 server involving players lashing at each other, and I was provided with enough screenshots and tacview files of players who obviously deliberately teamkilled or usurped the game in a way to ruin the fun somehow. People started speculating and more fingers were pointed towards more people in all directions. It drove me mad! And I'm certainly not into DCS for this type of kindergarten. And despite having little time for DCS, I forced myself to check out this whole drama to get to the bottom of things. At the end of the day, it wasn't worth it.

Keep doing what you're doing and good luck with the Syria campaign.

God bless us all!