New/Enhanced Faction (Insurgents) and better Infantry

[Dagobert666]

Now that we have 2 awesome attack helicopters, both (Hind in the 80s and Apache in the 2010s) have spent most of their careers fighting insurgents. However, we have very few units of this faction in DCS (in my opinion).

Dear ED team, it would be great if you could change two things at some point.

1) an insurgent faction with new units such as:
-Soldier, in civilian clothes (with AK, M4, M16, G3, Mosin-Nagant)
-Soldier, in civilian clothes (with RPG-7, FFV Carl Gustaf)
-Soldier, in civilian clothes (with MANPADS)
-Technical (Jeep) (at least 3-5 different types) (with different armament)
-old Russian light armored vehicles.
-Suicide bombers
- Mines and IEDs

etc etc

2) Now that we are very close to the infantry with the helicopters, they would have to learn a few new tricks (AI). So things like: more animations, looking for cover under fire, kneeling down, lying down. etc etc

-Maybe at some point the possibility that you can get in and out of vehicles maybe even occupy houses. But of course that is a very labor-intensive thing. Because that is definitely not supported by the engine.

Think about it, please. For me, that would make flying a helicopter a lot more fun. However, DCS is already so much fun for me. So thank you ED for DCS!

Edited November 3, 2021 by Dagobert666

[Tank50us]

I will agree with most of these, except the suicide bomber. The reason why is due to how touchy a subject that is in various parts of the world to even include such a thing in what amounts to a video game (seriously, look up what C&C Generals had to go through back in 2003 for German release). For best results on that subject, I would say use scripting, which I have done with some experiments and it looks quite impressive if it's done right.

Mines and IEDs have been requested in the past a number of times, but, again, for now, best to use scripting to get it right.

And yeah, having the farkers occupy a house would be nice, but it would require full interiors be modeled for every structure, and that would probably take years to properly do.

However, since you seem to be into COIN Ops, my unit is actually running two campaigns (well, as of this coming Friday we will be) that deal with Counter-Insurgency. If you're interested, shoot me a PM, and I'll give ya a Discord invite.

[Dagobert666]

as I see in the last AH64 video. Has ED already started work on, for example, the technical jeep. Thank ED for being awesome.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Dagobert666

[upyr1]

On 11/3/2021 at 2:51 AM, Dagobert666 said:

-Suicide bombers

I believe you can do this with a trigger, there is one for an explosion. Just set one up so unit x is in a zone or coalition gets in zone unit x blows up

[Tank50us]

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

unit x is in a zone

Yup. This is how you set it up. Alternatively you can use a moving zone so that it feels more realistic (make the target a static object like a barricade). I might have to do some testing, but it could also mean that if you have a moving zone, when you have the unit 'die', it explodes. Again, it'll require some testing.

[Northstar98]

Agreed with all of the above, though as for suicide bombers, see what upyr1 and Tank50us said, but for mines there is a generic, invisible landmine in static objects -> structures -> landmine, and it does in fact work.

I'd say the other thing desperately needed here is a separate insurgent coalition/side, so that 2 opposing coalitions can attack a common target, and have that target attack them. Even better would be the ability to add, edit, remove and rename coalitions/sides on the fly, to the tune of something like C:MO. This would be particularly relevant in Syria.

[HC_Official]

Great post OP , this stuff is very much needed in DCS

[upyr1]

On 11/24/2021 at 9:05 AM, Northstar98 said:

Agreed with all of the above, though as for suicide bombers, see what upyr1 and Tank50us said, but for mines there is a generic, invisible landmine in static objects -> structures -> landmine, and it does in fact work.

I'd say the other thing desperately needed here is a separate insurgent coalition/side, so that 2 opposing coalitions can attack a common target, and have that target attack them. Even better would be the ability to add, edit, remove and rename coalitions/sides on the fly, to the tune of something like C:MO. This would be particularly relevant in Syria.

Not only do we need a third coalition - let's say green but I think we should also have two or more insurgent factions, they might be called rebels, militia, guerillas the idea is that it would help simulate a mess like the Syrian civil war where there are insurgents siding with the major coalitions as well as some fighting against everyone else 

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Not only do we need a third coalition - let's say green but I think we should also have two or more insurgent factions, they might be called rebels, militia, guerillas the idea is that it would help simulate a mess like the Syrian civil war where there are insurgents siding with the major coalitions as well as some fighting against everyone else 

The best solution is to be able to add, edit, rename and remove coalitions/sides at will, as the user desires.

[Tank50us]

52 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The best solution is to be able to add, edit, rename and remove coalitions/sides at will, as the user desires.

and the ability to determine who those coalitions are 'allied' with, or who they're 'aggressive' with. Maybe even allow the coalition to have a 'designated leader' amongst the coalition. For example the Blue Coalition is led by the US, Red by the USSR, Green by Italy, etc Designating the 'lead' member gets some special unit or... something? IDK... just an idea that I had all of 30sec to think on.

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

and the ability to determine who those coalitions are 'allied' with, or who they're 'aggressive' with.

Yes, this should also include adjusting posture in relation to other coalitions/sides.

13 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Maybe even allow the coalition to have a 'designated leader' amongst the coalition. For example the Blue Coalition is led by the US, Red by the USSR, Green by Italy, etc Designating the 'lead' member gets some special unit or... something? IDK... just an idea that I had all of 30sec to think on.

Personally, I'd do away with assigning 'countries' to coalitions all together, instead, use the countries solely as a unit/livery filter and have a separate option for units to control which side/coalition the unit belongs to.

Every country should be available to every side, even multiple opposing sides.

This would allow for things like civil wars, without requiring a separate country, such as the USAF aggressors, for each side. In scenarios like Syria, you might have several sides that consistute insurgents, that are hostile to each other.

This would also get rid of the necessity to add aircraft to countries that don't operate said aircraft, in order to have the same aircraft on different sides.

See this thread, and in particular this post for more details.