A 'Sandbox' map

[Rick50]

9 hours ago, Eight Ball said:

Creating a virtual representation of a geographical area isn't a political statement in and of itself.

I don't remember seeing any drama surrounding Abkhazia or South Ossetia on the Caucasus map or the Golan Heights on the Syria map. So why would the strait of Taiwan (for example) would be an issue?

 

 

 

Different conflict types. Low level guerilla wars don't benefit as much from simulations.  But a "invade Taiwan" scenario would benefit hugely from a realistic combat flight simulation with realistic aircraft. Realistic loadouts, realistic fuel burn and capacities. Somewhat realistic air to air refueling. REalistic map size, pushing the limits of tactical aircraft combat radius.

 

 It could be used to test test and re-test so many thousands of variations to find weaknesses in Taiwan's defensive capabilities, and then allow them to see ways of hurting specific targets early, to ensure a successful invasion. In real life it might not follow the simulations, but the simulations done beforehand could give an invader a false sense of potential victory, resulting in thousands or millions dead, regardless of the victory/defeat outcome.  

 

By contrast, the Syria map, while relevant, doesn't see the same type of scenario: it's all so incredibly close. It's not distant over water. If armor columns are ordered to invade, there's no ships or cargo jets needed, they just roll over some barb wire and their in. Many airforces are regularly flying over Syria these days, that's not true of Taiwan. It's just different in many tactical and strategic ways.

[maxTRX]

13 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

Different conflict types. Low level guerilla wars don't benefit as much from simulations.  But a "invade Taiwan" scenario would benefit hugely from a realistic combat flight simulation with realistic aircraft. Realistic loadouts, realistic fuel burn and capacities. Somewhat realistic air to air refueling. REalistic map size, pushing the limits of tactical aircraft combat radius.

 

 It could be used to test test and re-test so many thousands of variations to find weaknesses in Taiwan's defensive capabilities, and then allow them to see ways of hurting specific targets early, to ensure a successful invasion. In real life it might not follow the simulations, but the simulations done beforehand could give an invader a false sense of potential victory, resulting in thousands or millions dead, regardless of the victory/defeat outcome.  

 

By contrast, the Syria map, while relevant, doesn't see the same type of scenario: it's all so incredibly close. It's not distant over water. If armor columns are ordered to invade, there's no ships or cargo jets needed, they just roll over some barb wire and their in. Many airforces are regularly flying over Syria these days, that's not true of Taiwan. It's just different in many tactical and strategic ways.

You lost me there...  I fight Chinese and Israelis over Syria for a day or 2... Then, I fight Turks and Syrians based out of Jordan.  I fought everyone over NTTR... including Americans

[Tank50us]

7 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

You lost me there...  I fight Chinese and Israelis over Syria for a day or 2... Then, I fight Turks and Syrians based out of Jordan.  I fought everyone over NTTR... including Americans

The point he's making is that a map of the Taiwan straits could be used by the PLA to virtually test ideas for an invasion of Taiwan should it come to that. Especially if everything that exists there now is modeled.

[upyr1]

19 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

What the heck are you guys discussing here?  The geographical maps or specific campaigns.. with pre-set or actual historical scenarios?

A map editor and the ramifications. 

[Rick50]

History is the past. Pre-set would be a game scenario. I'm talking about the use of DCS to game out a real invasion plan. To find weaknesses, strengths. Use the product as a simulation tool to help enable a real world attempt at seizing the island nation.  Doing so with any of the other maps would not help an aggressive airforce, but an accurate map with teh correct size body of water, might be quite useful for mission planning, then test out the effectiveness of mission types, planning, frequency of same. The tactical realism would help to give an idea of levels of attrtion to expect, enabling strategic choices of where to invest and where/when to sacrifice for the end goal. 

 

It wasn't that long ago that officers would game out strategies on maps and boards, trying to figure out how best to  carry out the orders from their political overlords. But today you can run more detail faster on a pc. I know of two other retail PC products that have been used to help plan real world  military ops. 

 

[maxTRX]

24 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

History is the past. Pre-set would be a game scenario. I'm talking about the use of DCS to game out a real invasion plan. To find weaknesses, strengths. Use the product as a simulation tool to help enable a real world attempt at seizing the island nation.  Doing so with any of the other maps would not help an aggressive airforce, but an accurate map with teh correct size body of water, might be quite useful for mission planning, then test out the effectiveness of mission types, planning, frequency of same. The tactical realism would help to give an idea of levels of attrtion to expect, enabling strategic choices of where to invest and where/when to sacrifice for the end goal. 

 

It wasn't that long ago that officers would game out strategies on maps and boards, trying to figure out how best to  carry out the orders from their political overlords. But today you can run more detail faster on a pc. I know of two other retail PC products that have been used to help plan real world  military ops. 

 

Perhaps somewhere in the dark corners of the globe, hehe.  I think you might be underestimating these 'guys' ... a little.

Anyway, I find enough fun with whatever map ED throws at me... even if they flatten them up or distort them, lol.

[Nodak]

Making a map might be easy, but wouldn't it be a major work developing your own GPS and coordinate systems and getting it integrated to get the weapons to work right without real world data?  Than how advanced is the new weather system going to be, can it easily be matched to conform with your new imaginary map?  Magnetic fields, stars, something tells me its not so simple as just making a newly shaped land mass.

[Mars Exulte]

Interesting discussion, but a lot of you guys are being way too cerebral. Political objections to maps are not because they're worried somebody will wargame a scenario. All respective parties are constantly doing that, anyway, and don't need a video game for the purpose. Any MoD that DOESN'T constantly wargame scenarios needs to be summarily fired.

 

No, the objections to this sort of thing are invariably much more petty and ridiculous. See China complaining because NASA included Taiwan as a dropdown option in an online signup.

 

In specific cases, like Crimea and Taiwan, acknowledging there is even a dispute IS the offense. Typically the, ummm... ''offended party'' we'll say, believes that if they push their narrative hard enough and long enough, it will eventually be seen as fact by enough people that it will become the effective reality, too. Thus the tendency to pursue even very obscure things like video games. It's about public perception.

 

Most places/situations don't have this issue (Syria for example) because the relevant parties are all largely in agreement on the situation. It's very specific gray areas that fall almost entirely within the scope of ''public relations/public perception'' where it becomes an issue.

 

 

 

But we've ventured a bit from the topic of ''should we make sandbox maps''  Any new map is a good map, imo, provided it is constructed in a reasonable manner.

 

 

You know, like this

[maxTRX]

31 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

 

 

You know, like this

 

Wow, even a small box with terrain like this would make A/G missions mind blowing.

[Mars Exulte]

38 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

 

Wow, even a small box with terrain like this would make A/G missions mind blowing.

 

  Yeah, honestly weird stuff you see in the real world makes you pause when discussing ''realistic'' stuff. I remember a while back, can't remember if it was here about the Syria map or somewhere else, but some guy was complaining about (or requesting, I can't remember) a certain lake being pink/reddish and the whole ensuing argument about ''HURDUR REALISIM''. Tldr, the lake is actually pink, that IS realisitic.

 

  I often see similar discussions around here about myriad things, and it's really funny what people get in their heads about what the world around them is like and what phenomena are/aren't ''realistic''

Edited April 12, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[Tank50us]

3 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Yeah, honestly weird stuff you see in the real world makes you pause when discussing ''realistic'' stuff. I remember a while back, can't remember if it was here about the Syria map or somewhere else, but some guy was complaining about (or requesting, I can't remember) a certain lake being pink/reddish and the whole ensuing argument about ''HURDUR REALISIM''. Tldr, the lake is actually pink, that IS realisitic.

 

  I often see similar discussions around here about myriad things, and it's really funny what people get in their heads about what the world around them is like and what phenomena are/aren't ''realistic''

 

 

Yeah, and that mountain range you shared would make someone think "oh it's just Ace Combat", when in reality, no, that's a real mountain range. Or if ED decided to back some of the more.... eh... strange prototypes that actually existed outside the drawing board, people would claim that the unit in question didn't exist... when it actually did (an example would be the Flying Flapjack).

 

I'm the type of person that likes having options in DCS, and I can't understand why people are so against that very idea (like having a sandbox mode for the maps, or a sandbox map). Shouldn't having options be a good thing? Sure, this map idea isn't exactly realistic, but not everyone in DCS is going to make a d***-shaped city just because they can. More likely, they'll use such a tool to recreate a city-scape that did exist in (for example) the 40s so they can have a proper mission set there with the Warbirds. Or try to recreate a city to what it looked like in the mid 70s to create a mission set during the Cold War, and so on. Heck, if people wanted to they could recreate Strangereal locations if they wanted and actually have the battles play out the way they would in the real world (some writers have done this actually). Just because something is 'fake', doesn't mean it can't be interesting and enjoyable. And at the same time, just because something is 'real', doesn't mean it will be interesting and enjoyable.

 

The challenge should be: to find the happy medium were everyone gets to enjoy the game, and it's still a challenge.

[upyr1]

On 4/12/2021 at 6:29 PM, Tank50us said:

 

Yeah, and that mountain range you shared would make someone think "oh it's just Ace Combat", when in reality, no, that's a real mountain range. Or if ED decided to back some of the more.... eh... strange prototypes that actually existed outside the drawing board, people would claim that the unit in question didn't exist... when it actually did (an example would be the Flying Flapjack).

 

I'm the type of person that likes having options in DCS, and I can't understand why people are so against that very idea (like having a sandbox mode for the maps, or a sandbox map). Shouldn't having options be a good thing? Sure, this map idea isn't exactly realistic, but not everyone in DCS is going to make a d***-shaped city just because they can. More likely, they'll use such a tool to recreate a city-scape that did exist in (for example) the 40s so they can have a proper mission set there with the Warbirds. Or try to recreate a city to what it looked like in the mid 70s to create a mission set during the Cold War, and so on. Heck, if people wanted to they could recreate Strangereal locations if they wanted and actually have the battles play out the way they would in the real world (some writers have done this actually). Just because something is 'fake', doesn't mean it can't be interesting and enjoyable. And at the same time, just because something is 'real', doesn't mean it will be interesting and enjoyable.

 

The challenge should be: to find the happy medium were everyone gets to enjoy the game, and it's still a challenge.

I expect to have a mix of real and fictional maps if we had some tools.