some ship improvements

[upyr1]

I'm harping on ships improvements as this is one area where DCS is lacking.

As others have mentioned we need better damage models and counter measures. Next some ideas for improvements to other aspects. 

We also need improvements to the subs

Class\sub classes- there may be a good reason that Eagle has modeled carries and other ships individually but when building missions I think about ship classes. So I would like to see all the individual ships to show up in the livery menu and have an option that prevents repeating ships.

Next I would like formations and templates for battle groups

We would also need an option to edit the weapons and in the case amphibious ships and landing craft a way to preload ground units. 

 

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Class\sub classes- there may be a good reason that Eagle has modeled carries and other ships individually but when building missions I think about ship classes. So I would like to see all the individual ships to show up in the livery menu and have an option that prevents repeating ships.

In the cases where ships are essentially the same, I agree, just list the ship by its class name (in the case of USSR/Russian/Chinese ships, it would be beneficial to use the native name + project number and the NATO reporting name, where applicable).

But for things like the Minitz-Roosevelt-class aircraft carriers, I think it would be better to have a drop down menu in the unit listing, which is given the class name, and then when you click on it, it expands listing the individual ships (there's more than a livery change between the ships).

But having a system that represents a proper order of battle would be good, though it isn't too difficult to set-up with regards to ships (well, apart from not having the right ones).

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Next I would like formations and templates for battle groups

I personally make my own, but I can see how it can be useful.

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

We would also need an option to edit the weapons and in the case amphibious ships and landing craft a way to preload ground units.

Agreed.

[upyr1]

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

In the cases where ships are essentially the same, I agree, just list the ship by its class name (in the case of USSR/Russian/Chinese ships, it would be beneficial to use the native name + project number and the NATO reporting name, where applicable).

This would be nice, I figure the menu name for the Kirovs would be Kirov-class Project 1144 Orlan (sea eagle) class

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But for things like the Nimitz-Roosevelt-class aircraft carriers, I think it would be better to have a drop down menu in the unit listing, which is given the class name, and then when you click on it, it expands listing the individual ships (there's more than a livery change between the ships).

Sometimes the differnces don't matter to the mission and some times they do. I figure it is important to list classes, sub-classes and refits. The only real question is would it be better to  treat each varriant as a different class? 

Let's take the Essex class carrier for example You had two subclasses, the Original Essex and the long Hull or Ticonderoga and 2 upgrades The SCB-27A SCB-27C and SBC-125 I have the 125A and C depending on the previous upgrade. 

So you could have 

Essex (short hull)

Essex (short hull)SBC 27A

Essex (short hull)SBC 27C

Essex (short hull) SCB-125A

Essex (short hull) SCB-125C 

Essex (long hull) SBC 27A

Essex (long hull) SBC 27C

Essex (long hull) SCB-125A

Essex (short hull) SCB-125C

Listed on the class menu as separate classes or you could have a 4 level hierarchy

class

subclass 

refit

ship

-----

I figure the which is best comes down to clutter and readability. I would vote for treating them as separate classes. 

 

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But having a system that represents a proper order of battle would be good, though it isn't too difficult to set-up with regards to ships (well, apart from not having the right ones).

the lack of naval assets is the biggest problem. 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I personally make my own, but I can see how it can be useful.

I build my own as well but I think  Eagle in general needs to make better use of the templates as a quick way to put together a docternally / period correct unit

[Northstar98]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:01 PM, upyr1 said:

This would be nice, I figure the menu name for the Kirovs would be Kirov-class Project 1144 Orlan (sea eagle) class

In my rename overhaul thread I referred to it as: "Peter the Great" (TARKR Pr. 1142.2 ‘Pyotr Velikiy” [Kirov CGN]) as it is supposed to be that specific ship. This gives the full thing.

For ships that are representative of an entire class though, the format is: native designation and classififcation [NATO reporting name and USN hull classification]

For example: 'Frigate 1135M Rezky' -> 'SKR Pr. 1135M “Burevestnik-M” [Krivak II FF]' (SKR is the Russian abbreviation for patrol ship)

On 10/15/2021 at 12:01 PM, upyr1 said:

Sometimes the differnces don't matter to the mission and some times they do. I figure it is important to list classes, sub-classes and refits. The only real question is would it be better to  treat each varriant as a different class?

If it's officially designated as such, then yes.

Like I said, I'd envisage it using expandable, drop-down lists:

So with the Nimitz-class:

• [-] Nimitz-class CVN:
  • [-] Nimitz-subclass:
    • CVN-68 USS Nimitz
    • CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
    • CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson
  • [-] Theodoore Roosevelt-subclass:
    • CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt
    • CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln
    • CVN-73 USS George Washington
    • CVN-74 USS John C. Stennis
    • CVN-75 USS Harry S. Truman
  • [-] Ronald Reagan-subclass:
    • CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan
    • CVN-77 George H.W. Bush

So you'd initially have one item in the unit list (Nimitz-class CVN), when you click on it, it further expands into the 3 subclasses, and when one of those is clicked, it would expand into the ships of the class.

Though in this case, all the different ships have subtle differences, if they're identical though, you could list them by class.

On 10/15/2021 at 12:01 PM, upyr1 said:

Let's take the Essex class carrier for example You had two subclasses, the Original Essex and the long Hull or Ticonderoga and 2 upgrades The SCB-27A SCB-27C and SBC-125 I have the 125A and C depending on the previous upgrade. 

So you could have 

Essex (short hull)

Essex (short hull)SBC 27A

Essex (short hull)SBC 27C

Essex (short hull) SCB-125A

Essex (short hull) SCB-125C 

Essex (long hull) SBC 27A

Essex (long hull) SBC 27C

Essex (long hull) SCB-125A

Essex (short hull) SCB-125C

Listed on the class menu as separate classes or you could have a 4 level hierarchy

class

subclass 

refit

ship

-----

I figure the which is best comes down to clutter and readability. I would vote for treating them as separate classes.

Like I said, personally if each ship is different from one another, it to me, makes more sense to list them individually.

If members of the same class are all identical (so for instance, all of the Krivak IIs are identical, just using different weapon variants for different years), then you could just list it by class, and then 

On 10/15/2021 at 12:01 PM, upyr1 said:

the lack of naval assets is the biggest problem.

Personally, there's so many issues with the naval environment (and like I've said before, I can write a trilogy on the subject), it's hard to pinpoint exactly one.

Though simply adding units only solves one problem, it just means you have to spend more work getting them to the same standard, and implementing improvements later on.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Callsign112]

On 10/14/2021 at 9:55 PM, upyr1 said:

I'm harping on ships improvements as this is one area where DCS is lacking.

As others have mentioned we need better damage models and counter measures. Next some ideas for improvements to other aspects. 

We also need improvements to the subs

Class\sub classes- there may be a good reason that Eagle has modeled carries and other ships individually but when building missions I think about ship classes. So I would like to see all the individual ships to show up in the livery menu and have an option that prevents repeating ships.

Next I would like formations and templates for battle groups

We would also need an option to edit the weapons and in the case amphibious ships and landing craft a way to preload ground units. 

 

+1 And I think (hope) they are listening. If you look at DCS World in general and the gradual progressive improvements, I would say these things are very likely coming.

[upyr1]

On 10/15/2021 at 6:31 AM, Northstar98 said:

If it's officially designated as such, then yes.

Like I said, I'd envisage it using expandable, drop-down lists:

So with the Nimitz-class:

• Nimitz-class CVN:
  • Nimitz-subclass:
    • CVN-68 USS Nimitz
    • CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
    • CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson
  • Theodoore Roosevelt-subclass:
    • CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt
    • CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln
    • CVN-73 USS George Washington
    • CVN-74 USS John C. Stennis
    • CVN-75 USS Harry S. Truman
  • Ronald Reagan-subclass:
    • CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan
    • CVN-77 George H.W. Bush

So you'd initially have one item in the unit list (Nimitz-class CVN), when you click on it, it further expands into the 3 subclasses, and when one of those is clicked, it would expand into the ships of the class.

Though in this case, all the different ships have subtle differences, if they're identical though, you could list them by class.

That could work with the Nimitz class but there would be a lot more options for the Essex which is why I suggested the hierarchy

So using the Essex again since I believe they would present the most options

<type> since we are doing an Essex they would be carriers though we might have some listed as Amphibious warfare as well. As some Essex were re-designated as LPHs

<class> We select Essex

<subclass>Essex (Short Hull) , Ticonderoga <long hull> and all

<fitting>WW II,LPH< SCB-27A, SCB-27C, SCB-125A, SCB-125C 

Then after selecting the refit we would have each ship listed individually that had the refit I think a filter could help reduce clutter. Though I would give you the option to select random

Edited October 16, 2021 by upyr1

[upyr1]

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

+1 And I think (hope) they are listening. If you look at DCS World in general and the gradual progressive improvements, I would say these things are very likely coming.

I hope you are right. 

[upyr1]

On 10/15/2021 at 6:31 AM, Northstar98 said:

So you'd initially have one item in the unit list (Nimitz-class CVN), when you click on it, it further expands into the 3 subclasses, and when one of those is clicked, it would expand into the ships of the class.

Though in this case, all the different ships have subtle differences, if they're identical though, you could list them by class.

I know the ships aren't identical, however the main point to having the class option is to just make it easier to filter through what you want. No matter what happens There needs to be a way to prevent duplicates. For example, if you place the USS New Jersey on the map then it shouldn't be on the list of available ships.

 

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

For example, if you place the USS New Jersey on the map then it shouldn't be on the list of available ships.

Yeah, it would be good to get something like a proper Order of Battle, I'm pretty sure the other F-16 sim did it for some units.

[upyr1]

On 10/18/2021 at 3:54 AM, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, it would be good to get something like a proper Order of Battle, I'm pretty sure the other F-16 sim did it for some units.

I think that should be hardcoded with Naval units, though we should be able to set that up with the dynamic campaigns, but that is a different thread. Even in cases where ships might be identical in terms of models, I really think when using historic mode we need to have individual ships restricted by dates.