More Coalitions (not just Blue & Red)

[Weta43]

Some time ago ED talk about on Mission editor luas has a third coalition, but actually has a "stub" in a commented line, with other "no finished" functionality.

 

Works fine if you un-comment it - White coalition is neutral

[Alpenwolf]

Works fine if you un-comment it - White coalition is neutral

Yeah, but I'm not looking for a third neutral coalition. Rather multiple coalitions with the option of making them neutral, hostile, etc.

[Alpenwolf]

Still hoping :music_whistling:

[Xilon_x]

if on the red side there are all the nations that support Russia.

the blue side are the nations that support the United States of America.

in the blue side and including NATO.

ok ok and the TERRORISM of what color and?

ISIS jihadist terrorist organization what color is it?

THE SEPARATIVE GROUPS in the world are there are so many what color are they?

non-governmental organizations ONG. what color?

 

wars.

for reasons of economy.

for reasons of religion.

for reasons of every humanitarian kind

Edited August 6, 2019 by Xilon_x

[Xilon_x]

example this is alternative organization in the movie 007

 

SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion)

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Or just keep it with colours.

[Alpenwolf]

Works fine if you un-comment it - White coalition is neutral

Yea, but that would give us a total of 3 max.

[Ducksen]

How about just being able to have nations rather than red vs blue? And just group the Nations up into as many groups you want? And the user can assign names to whatever groups they want.

 

Eg: ISAF, KFOR, SFOR, NATO, UN, Warsaw Pact, etc... etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

+1

[QuiGon]

If I'm blue and I'm fighting red and green what's the difference to me if red and green start shooting at each other?

 

Pointless.

You seem to have very limited imagination...

[Baco]

Well as a mission builder, i do appreciate the goodness of having a neutral or third coalition. But regarding changing alliance or better put, taking action within a same mission (unless is a persistent world mission)

I believe its a bit too rash.

 

Factions do not decide to initiate hostilities on the spot, or in a few minutes.. usually takes at least a few ours and communication through the chain of command.

 

Still it would be cool to have neutrals, that should be avoided.

[QuiGon]

Factions do not decide to initiate hostilities on the spot, or in a few minutes.. usually takes at least a few ours and communication through the chain of command.

Indeed, but a mission can take place at a time where this process is well underway already or where the enemy initiates hostilities.

[Alpenwolf]

If I'm blue and I'm fighting red and green what's the difference to me if red and green start shooting at each other?

 

Pointless.

Pointless?! No offense, but use your imagination like the other user said. And I mean that as well intended criticism so here's an explantion to what you've said:

You in Blue fighting Red and Green who are enemies as well, is not like you fighting Red and Green who as of now would be allies becasue we only have two factions (Blue and Red), so Red and Green are Red only. Obviously the enemy will deal with your faction only and no other. But if Green (additional faction) or more would be available, then things become very interesting. You then could wait and sneak around while the other two are fighting each other, then fly in with your buddies to wipe out the area and give access to your strikers. That's just one scenario I have in mind. As a mission designer it would offer me something new and I could create more missions of even more different scenarios.

Another intriguing example: Imagine the pilots of two factions start communicating on SRS/TS and conspire against the third one. Simply becasue that faction has more players on that night, or well known veteran players that many fear or just for any other reason. And then one of the two betrays the agreement they have and start shooting at any enemy plane they can find. Now that's FUN! It doesn't have to be in all mission but some at least to break the routine. I see more benefit in this than harm. Actually... no harm at all.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

S!

[TOViper]

This was perfect system.

 

 

Indeed, it was!

Would love to have it, to bring more into the game.

EF2000, at some certain state during a campaign also made blue (neutral) forces to attack others. This was amazing (back in 1995!!!)

 

 

Thanks

TOViper

[Northstar98]

Still adds no value. On my IFF a hostile is a hostile.

 

What if a neutral coalition who wasn't hostile, suddenly becomes hostile mid-mission? What if it was a friendly? What if your actions initiate a defensive response?

 

And what about things like the Syrian civil war you have like 4 main belligerents all hostile to each other, think about ROE...

Edited September 25, 2019 by Northstar98

[QuiGon]

Still adds no value. On my IFF a hostile is a hostile.

So it's not just your imagination that is limited, but also your tactical ability to make the most out of a given situation.

[Alpenwolf]

So it's not just your imagination that is limited, but also your tactical ability to make the most out of a given situation.

Either that or he's just trolling, which is ok by me. I suggest we leave him be. Obviously he just shrugs at all the explanations without producing any constructive illustration.

So, word of advice... ignore

[philstyle]

What if a neutral coalition who wasn't hostile, suddenly becomes hostile mid-mission? What if it was a friendly? What if your actions initiate a defensive response?

 

And what about things like the Syrian civil war you have like 4 main belligerents all hostile to each other, think about ROE...

 

 

The neutral operator is one of the main reasons to have third coalitions. Civilian/ Aid /UN aircraft, ships or grounds units etc. might operate in various capacities in places where military actions are ongoing between factions.

 

Currently in DCS, adding a unit automatically makes it hostile to one of the two factions.

 

It would be beneficial from a mission/ scenario perspective to be able to have units that, perhaps, all coalitions, some coalitions or no coalition would be histile to, in the combination of the mission maker's choosing.

[Shadow KT]

Multiple coalitions is a really great feature that can open up a lit of possibilitiea.

 

Lets say you got your Blue and Red coalitions which are not friendly towards each other, but are neither hostile.

You now get a third Insurgent coalition, which might be secretely backed up by one of the two main coalitions. Lets say it is backed up by the Red coalition.

 

If the Red coalition has an AWACS and I play as an Insurgent commander, now I have live feed back from their AWACS, if we were in the same coalition, which wouldn't realistically be tha case.

 

Blue can be hostile with the Insurgents, but it might not be with Red, as to not escalate or begin a bigger conflict.

 

Another example would be two coalitions which are not friendly, but neither hostile are fighting a third coalition at the same time (a lot of real life examples).

 

The two coalitions would not share resources or IFF codes in reality, they will show up as unknown on radar, but this doesn't mean you should engage them. Right now you are limited to putting them together and sharing.

 

About Trev.... all I got to say is: There is a reason he has had his posting rights revoked multiple times. Just don't feed the you know what

[TOViper]

If I'm blue and I'm fighting red and green what's the difference to me if red and green start shooting at each other?

Pointless.

 

Not really pointless, since then you can shoot both, or simply watch them killing each other.

Other way around:

What if green starts fighting against ... YOU?

 

Your post was a joke, was it?

[Alpenwolf]

Not really pointless, since then you can shoot both, or simply watch them killing each other.

Other way around:

What if green starts fighting against ... YOU?

 

Your post was a joke, was it?

Told you, he is...

[robgraham]

If we ever get the Syria etc map we will kinda need/really want the ability to hae multiple coalitions, heck even if we ever get Korea etc.. why? because you might want:

 

Syria:

Faction 1 - US/Coalition forces.

Faction 2 - Russian/Syrian Forces

Faction 3 - Insurgent forces.

(ie current mess over there)

 

Korea

Factoin 1 - S Korean/US/Coalition forces

Faction 2 - N Korean forces

Faction 3 - China zealously guarding it's boarder and claiming it's neutral to both but at times helping 2.

 

n that doesn't bring things up like limited warfare situations were you might have civil etc traffic and things needing ident, so yeah I'd love this to finally be actually integrated fully and properly.

[Xilon_x]

helping a coalition without participating officially has conditions, however .......

example the Korean war was between North Korea and Americans but the Russians helped North Korea by using means support.

Russia the Russian pilts kept to the Korean border and the Americans to destroy the Russian MIGs bordered the North Korean border.

therefore the condition and not to cross the border beyond the 20 miles otherwise you are officially declared a country in war.

[Alpenwolf]

Exactly one of my thoughts, robgraham. The Syria map with all the coalitions in it!

[Fri13]

Neutral side would as well be United Nations peacekeepers, it could be the another rebel group that is supported so they are not attacked by anyone else etc.

 

What the DCS World needs is not sides RED, BLUE, Neutral. But teams and alliances.

 

Now what does that mean? We can have 9 digits (1-9) for the teams, that can allocate multiple countries in them. And then there can be alliances (again 9 digits, 1-9) that can generate a multiple cooperations between alliances.

 

So you can have a situation where there is country A vs Country B in situation (combat over bridge, in town etc) and then generate a specific units own truce (transport wounded, let the specific unit pass the area etc) by designating the same alliance flag to the units in that area.

 

This way you have a hostile A and B units towards each others, but A does not shoot Country B ambulance in that area, but will shoot a anything else.

 

The alliance flag can be a unit mode or it can be a trigger area even, so all the units on that trigger area switch to same alliance mode. This can be a bridge over river that is the border, to generate the neutral area there where units will not shoot each others (like exchange of the prisoners) but will if the unit will move over the trigger zone to other side with reach of weapons.

 

Now, one of the digits in the alliance mode can be set as universal "White Flag", so that example when unit receives enough damage, they can switch to "White Flag" and the other AI will stop attacking them and they do not shoot back. Be it a group damage falling below 30% and they get "captured". Or it can be a damaged aircraft that the other pilot will leave and let them to return to base if they get there.

 

The mission designer could define each of the team and alliance digits at specific rules, like digit 9 to be that "white flag" and digit 8 to be "do not shoot" that would allow to generate situations where Team 1 does not want to start the war with Team 2 by firing first, so they do not shoot Team 2 as long it has Alliance 8 digit, but once they get shot at by Team 2, it changes its alliance digit from 8 to 2 and then Team 1 will engage them.

 

It is little similar to "Do not engage" modes, but just make it easier and more universal that can allow quickly change the status of all the units on the map, on general area, specific unit or group etc.

 

And it could then be called as 9-9 or 2-1 combination digits.

[Alpenwolf]

Sounds good too. The thing is, either way I don't think it's that hard to do. Perhaps ED needs an incentive to make this or any other wish happen, I suppose.