The Baltic Pack

[Drakabo]

The_Baltic_Pack_for_DCS_World.pdfSaab_SK_60B_for_DCS_World.pdf

I wish that a baltic aircraft pack is added to DCS World. To add a bigger variety of planes as well as a map, static objects and other ground objects. These files is not my work, but I have permission to post it.

[Northstar98]

51 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

An early 80s to early 90s themed baltic theater +assets would be a dream, for me especially with the Viggen in mind. It's on my sig wishlist for a reason and i think for a lot of folks who grew up in cold war times too. Apart from a Fulda Gap theater i think nothing else catches the vibes of these times as well as the baltic.

 

I'm one of the youngest here, and my preference is Cold War by far. SP missions with modern aircraft in DCS is mostly akin to flying like a faster airliner, hitting the weapons release and flying back, threats are mostly easy to deal with, unless you make it so that you're vastly outnumbered or have restricted weapons.

 

I guess what I really long for is something like SF2:EU/SF2:NA but in DCS.

 

And other than a northern/central Germany map, a Baltic map (with appropriate assets) is the next best thing. Followed by a NATO Northern Flank map, or a GIUK Gap map.

 

But pretty much agree with the OP, and welcome to the forums to you!

 

Your list is pretty comprehensive (though there's a few things like a baseline AJ 37 Viggen and JA 37 Viggen, the former should be super simple for Heatblur (literally a copy and paste, remove Rb-15F, BK90 and TERNAV at all set). It's also important to stress multiple variants of the Tu-16 (i.e a baseline Badger A, an anti-ship w. RADAR Badger C (Tu-16K-10-26) and a combined Badger G (Tu-16KSR-2-5-11) at least.

 

There's also the Il-28 and Tu-22R and Tu-22K.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[TLTeo]

It would be a pretty cool map/pack, but it is absolutely not realistic to expect to release that many assets (and full fidelity modules!!!!) in the course of 2-3 years, nevermind one like your pdf seems to suggest...

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

It would be a pretty cool map/pack, but it is absolutely not realistic to expect to release that many assets (and full fidelity modules!!!!) in the course of 2-3 years, nevermind one like your pdf seems to suggest...

 

Yeah, with the current track record it's more dream than feasible, though it would be fantastic (you should see my wishlist for just USSR assets - you'd probably have to redesign the unit listing to accommodate them all, with sub folders or something; that definitely isn't feasible in anything shorter than a decade of dedicated focus). 

[bies]

Late Cold War means:

• Symmetrical opponents NATO-WARPAC
• Flayable aircrafts of BOTH sides possible to model
• Declassified system and platforms possible to make in more realistic way
• Possible to model reasonably realistic assets like SAM system, military ships systems etc.
• More attractive manual skill based closer range weapon employment both AA and AG
• Many real life wars stirring imagination
• Shorter development cycle of modules
• Average player can remember how to operate more modules, so it will buy more of them
• All the sexiest airframes like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 still young and shiny

Mid 2000s:

• No symmetrical opponents, US hegemony, Russian military massively reduced and defounded, US converted for low threat environment operations
• Flayable aircrafts only for one side possible to model, US Navy vs USAF scenarios, Russian and Chinese absolutely impossible to model
• Some classified systems have to be removed/ommited/changed
• Impossible to model reasonably realistic SAM like S-400 or ships like mid 2000s AEGIS, only extremely simplyfied
• Less attractive automatic stand off weapon employment mostly without seeing the enemy for both AA and AG
• Only fantasy scenarios or completely asymmetrical
• Significantly longer development cycle of modules due to additional electronic gizmos
• Average player can remember how to operate only 2-4 modules, so it will buy less of them
• Still the same airframes F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000, but older, overweight, often as a low mix already partially replaced by newer types like (F-22, EF, Rafale)

That's why i don't have a clue why ED decided to make mid 2000 instead of late Cold War.

Edited January 27, 2021 by bies

[JonathanRL]

As the author of the PDFs in question, they where more an exercise for me in terms of marketing writing than anything else. That is why there exist unrealistic time estimates. Last time I made a project close to that size, it took me around five years and had a team at my back to help. Since Northstar mentions SF2 he may very well be aware of it.

That said, I would absolutely love more AI Units in the Cold War timeframe if we cannot get the modules themselves and the arsenal of Soviet Bombers are on the top of my wishlist.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, bies said:

Cold War means:

• Symmetrical opponents NATO-WARPAC
• Flayable aircrafts of BOTH sides possible to model
• Declassified system and platforms possible to make in more realistic way
• Possible to model reasonably realistic assets like SAM system, military ships systems etc.
• More attractive manual skill based weapon employment both AA and AG
• Many real life wars stirring imagination
• All the sexiest airframes like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 still young and shiny

Mid 2000s:

• No symmetrical opponents, US hegemony, Russian military massively reduced and defounded, US converted for low threat environment operations
• Flayable aircrafts only for one side - NATO possible to model, US Navy vs USAF scenarios
• Some classified systems have to be removed/ommited/changed
• Impossible to model reasonably realistic SAM like S-400 or ships like mid 2000s AEGIS
• Less attractive automatic stand off weapon employment mostly without seeing the enemy for both AA and AG
• Only fantasy scenarios or completely asymmetrical
• Still the same airframes F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000, but older, heavier, partially replaced by newer types like (F-22, EF, Rafale)

That's why i don't have a clue why ED decided to make mid 2000 instead of Cold War.

 

 

Abso-friggin-lutely!

 

Only point I might contest is the modelling of things like Aegis, which shouldn't be too outside the bounds of possibility, especially given that every AI RADAR/FC system is heavily simplified (and we'll probably have to wait for a SAM simulator equivalent before we do).

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, JonathanRL said:

As the author of the PDFs in question, they where more an exercise for me in terms of marketing writing than anything else. That is why there exist unrealistic time estimates. Last time I made a project close to that size, it took me around five years and had a team at my back to help. Since Northstar mentions SF2 he may very well be aware of it.

 

Hmm, I might not be aware of your work in particular, though it has been a while.

 

Quote

That said, I would absolutely love more AI Units in the Cold War timeframe if we cannot get the modules themselves and the arsenal of Soviet Bombers are on the top of my wishlist.

 

Absolutely, the main ones for me would be the Il-28, Tu-16 and Tu-22, as well as maybe some older Tu-95 variants.

 

And speaking of variants, IMO at minimum you'd have to do at least 2 (at least for the Tu-16 and Tu-22).

 

The Il-28 can stay as its basic bomber variant.

 

For the Tu-16, it would be fantastic if we could get at least 3; that being the basic bomber variant (Badger A), a dedicated naval strike variant (Tu-16K-10-26 Badger C) and the combined version with the anti-ship missile capability of the C, but retaining the bombing capability and equipment of the A (Tu-16KSR-2-5-11 Badger G).

 

If you wanted to go further you could also do an ELINT/Reconnaissance variant (such as the Tu-16R Badger E) and an ECM variant (such as the Tu-16P Badger J/L). 

 

For the Tu-22, there's the R (reconnaissance variant, but retaining the bombing capability of the initial - only reason is that the initial variant only had a limited production run) and the K (missile carrier for the Kh-22/AS-4) or alternatively the RD or KD ('D' variants being able to be refuelled in flight).

 

For the Tu-95 again, there's the basic bomber variant (Bear-A), and an anti-ship missile carrier (Tu-95K22 Bear G), we already have the Tu-95MS cruise missile carrier but if you wanted to do another one there's the Tu-95RTs Bear-D, which is a maritime reconnaissance/targeting and ELINT aircraft (this is the Bear that's intercepted by NATO QRA aircraft most frequently).

 

We already have a Tu-142, though is long due an upgrade and has none of the ASW capabilities the real one does, fortunately that one is on the to-do list on the 2021 and beyond newsletter (we also seem to be getting an Il-38, another MPA with ASW capabilities - unfortunately no P-3C though).

Edited January 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[JonathanRL]

Quote

Hmm, I might not be aware of your work in particular, though it has been a while.

I made "The Scandinavian Front 2" mod. Its still up on CombatAce but discontinued

[Baco]

Yeah its more content than the whole DCS franchise has put out in 10 years LOL....

 

Is this a Millennials thing? wishful thinking mantra, I wanna give me now kind of thinking?.. Or an actual roadmap of anything tangible?

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, Baco said:

Yeah its more content than the whole DCS franchise has put out in 10 years LOL....

 

Is this a Millennials thing? wishful thinking mantra, I wanna give me now kind of thinking?.. Or an actual roadmap of anything tangible?

 

Nah, don't blame the millennials, I'm firmly a zoomer.

[kseremak]

Fantastic map and lot of possible scenarios.

 

Edit: This Soviet MiGs and Sukhois from the video posted up look fantastic, Soviet empire + Warsaw Pact was force to be reckoned with in '80s.

Edited June 5, 2021 by kseremak