Jump to content

A lot of ED's map choices are... odd


Ben Sones

Recommended Posts

I often have no idea what Eagle Dynamics is thinking when they come up with new ideas for maps, because half of them make no sense. Take the Mariana Islands: The last time that area saw major conflict was during World War II--Operation Forager, the Battle of Saipan. It seems like a no-brainer to release it as a WWII-era map, but what does ED do? They make it a modern-day map. I'm guessing the current lack of Pacific-theater warbirds is the reason why. But it seems like they could have held the release until they could deliver it alongside the Corsair and maybe an ED-designed Zero. Sell all three as a Pacific Theater bundle, and rake in a fortune. I know they are now planning to release a WWII variant of the map eventually, but still: weird.

"Lack of planes" didn't stop them from releasing the Channel map--a map that seems tailor made to recreate the Battle of Britain despite the fact that the only plane they have from the early war is the Soviet I-16. The Spitfire LF Mk. IX didn't go into service until 1943, the variant of the BF-109 they sell (the K-4) didn't see service until 1944, and they don't seem to have any plans to do the Hurricane. Also, the Channel map is kind of weird all-around, given that they already had the Normandy map. It's like, why not devote effort into developing a new theater, rather than a patch of ground very slightly to the east of an existing map? It seems like the Channel map just competes with the Normandy one (why would you want both?), and my understanding is that the Channel map is much, much nicer. So weird.

In 2014, Belsimtek released modules for the F-86 Sabre and the MiG-15, and both were good modules that were popular. Did Eagle Dynamics say "Damn! We should make a MiG Alley map?" Nope. Instead of Korea, we got... the Nevada Test and Training Range. A map that, as far as I can tell, few people like or use. There's an official MiG Alley campaign for the Sabre. It's set in the Caucasus. So weird. 

Even Afghanistan is kind of an odd choice for a new map, if I'm being honest. We already have two Middle East maps--do we really need a third? I'd rather see Korea first, and also a 1980s-era Iron Curtain map for Cold War conflicts--maybe set in Germany. That would be perfect for the Apache, which was designed specifically to fight Warsaw Pact forces in that sort of terrain. 

/rant off. We love ya, ED!

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. While I don't mind the choices of maps, I also don't really understand them. The channel with the maps we currently have does make sense imo. And in terms of quality I think it's way ahead of normandy. But the extension of normandy will likely make the channel obsolete. Especially if Ugra gives the entire map a makeover in syria quality. I have no doubt Afghanistan will be an excellent and interesting map. But huge parts of it will be another desert. That's why I'm very much looking forward to the south atlantic map. I'm also keeping my fingers crossed for a iron curtain and vietnam map at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RaveyDaveyGravy said:

That makes sense but then you look at Afghanistan and think of the grief both countries had there. Perhaps it's ok because they both got their arses handed to them on a plate?

They were not officially against each other at same period in Afghanistan.  It wasn't a conflict between US and Russia.


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

They were not officially against each other at same period in Afghanistan.  It wasn't a conflict between US and Russia.

 

IIRC Massoud and the afghan resistance were backed by CIA who shipped them weapons. So definitely not an open conflict between US and Soviet Union, but a conflict nonetheless

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, pixie said:

IIRC Massoud and the afghan resistance were backed by CIA who shipped them weapons. So definitely not an open conflict between US and Soviet Union, but a conflict nonetheless

Everyone's aware of that as I already implied it.  Keyword in my response was "Officially"

Russia and US had conflict in my backyard if we count all the "Black ops".  It's not about whether they were secretly trying to ruin each other or not.  Political influence is dictated by what they "Officially" claim.


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Taz1004 said:

It's just my speculation but ED being Russian company with US following, they're avoiding regions that both side have political interest in.  Korea and Taiwan for example.

 

Have you heard of Syria? The ongoing civil war, and the different factions the US and Russia support, disprove your theory.

Taiwan is out of the question for the same reason that the Taiwanese flag was removed from Maverick's jacket in the upcoming Top Gun sequal.


Edited by drPhibes
typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Taz1004 said:

It's just my speculation but ED being Russian company with US following, they're avoiding regions that both side have political interest in.  Korea and Taiwan for example.

What I was saying is that you can't really make that argument for an Afghanistan map though. They both still have a (geo)political interest there whether official or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, drPhibes said:

Have you heard of Syria? The ongoing civil war, and the different factions the US and Russia support, disprove your theory.

No it doesn't.  Syria as you said is a civil war.  US and Russia support different faction but it is not a conflict between US and Russia.

And "Official" involvement in Syria for both country is to fight IS.  Not against each other.

 

6 minutes ago, RaveyDaveyGravy said:

They both still have a (geo)political interest there whether official or not.

And you're disregarding the very point I was making.  So I'm not sure why you're quoting me.


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright then, no I'm certainly not disregarding anyones point, just trying to get my head round it. I'm missing your point and quoting the bit ofwhat you wrote that doesnt seem to hold for Afghanistan. ED aren't ignoring that region if the Bagram coordinates easter egg is to be believed.

So ok USA and "Russia" never fought each other in Afghanistan or Korea to be fair and Taiwan is a China issue nothing to do with "Russia", conflict wise at least.

Or are you getting into semantics over "Speculation" and "Officialy"? 

Im not trying to argue against your "ED avoid the politically sensitive" point its probably correct but Afghanistan content is surely just as sensitive, if not more than so Taiwan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RaveyDaveyGravy said:

Alright then, no I'm certainly not disregarding anyones point, just trying to get my head round it. I'm missing your point and quoting the bit ofwhat you wrote that doesnt seem to hold for Afghanistan. ED aren't ignoring that region if the Bagram coordinates easter egg is to be believed.

So ok USA and "Russia" never fought each other in Afghanistan or Korea to be fair and Taiwan is a China issue nothing to do with "Russia", conflict wise at least.

Or are you getting into semantics over "Speculation" and "Officialy"? 

Im not trying to argue against your "ED avoid the politically sensitive" point its probably correct but Afghanistan content is surely just as sensitive, if not more than so Taiwan.

I'm talking about "Political Influence" on pop culture.  Not what "Actually" happens in those countries behind curtain.  They can't influence pop culture with "secret" operations.

Officially, US never fought against Russia in neither Syria nor Afghanistan.

List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

North Korea is "Officially" supported by both Russia and China.  And Russia is "Officially" standing with China regarding Taiwan.

For game company like ED, dealing with the controversies probably is not worth it.  Something as trivial as naming convention can raise issues in related countries.


Edited by Taz1004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the map selection quite good. We're certainly missing some interesting areas, but the locations provided fit the simulator.

NTTR is an obvious map choice, training is part of being a pilot, ideally it would be extended to the ocean for carrier operations though

Marianas allows for a large map with sea operations. The only issue here is that 90% of carriers/naval fighters in the sim are US. With more red carrier assets, this would be a great map.

The Black Sea map sits on a Cold War border, and if you stretch your imagination a bit it can be a WWII battlefield

Syria is a current warzone so not much needs to be said I guess

The Persian Gulf has seen plenty of tension and I think it's a great area for hypothetical wars of varying levels of intensity

 

There is no need to pick a place that has seen real combat, and most DCS missions are hypothetical anyway. Even if the maps were historic combat zones, I'd rather fly imagined missions than historical ones most of the time just because of the surprise factor. If a mission is scripted to recreate a historical event, then you know exactly what's going to happen. Such missions have a place in the sim, but I see them more as extras than primary content.

  • Like 3

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just sounds like a way to compete with IL-2 great battles, giving the map and some modules that IL-2 players beg for years now (battle of Britain and France, Normandy, pacific theatre of operations, Mosquito). 

Simple, they just attract IL-2 players in DCS World, that’s it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 5:16 PM, Ben Sones said:

I often have no idea what Eagle Dynamics is thinking when they come up with new ideas for maps, because half of them make no sense. Take the Mariana Islands: The last time that area saw major conflict was during World War II--Operation Forager, the Battle of Saipan. It seems like a no-brainer to release it as a WWII-era map, but what does ED do? They make it a modern-day map. I'm guessing the current lack of Pacific-theater warbirds is the reason why. But it seems like they could have held the release until they could deliver it alongside the Corsair and maybe an ED-designed Zero. Sell all three as a Pacific Theater bundle, and rake in a fortune. I know they are now planning to release a WWII variant of the map eventually, but still: weird.

"Lack of planes" didn't stop them from releasing the Channel map--a map that seems tailor made to recreate the Battle of Britain despite the fact that the only plane they have from the early war is the Soviet I-16. The Spitfire LF Mk. IX didn't go into service until 1943, the variant of the BF-109 they sell (the K-4) didn't see service until 1944, and they don't seem to have any plans to do the Hurricane. Also, the Channel map is kind of weird all-around, given that they already had the Normandy map. It's like, why not devote effort into developing a new theater, rather than a patch of ground very slightly to the east of an existing map? It seems like the Channel map just competes with the Normandy one (why would you want both?), and my understanding is that the Channel map is much, much nicer. So weird.

In 2014, Belsimtek released modules for the F-86 Sabre and the MiG-15, and both were good modules that were popular. Did Eagle Dynamics say "Damn! We should make a MiG Alley map?" Nope. Instead of Korea, we got... the Nevada Test and Training Range. A map that, as far as I can tell, few people like or use. There's an official MiG Alley campaign for the Sabre. It's set in the Caucasus. So weird. 

Even Afghanistan is kind of an odd choice for a new map, if I'm being honest. We already have two Middle East maps--do we really need a third? I'd rather see Korea first, and also a 1980s-era Iron Curtain map for Cold War conflicts--maybe set in Germany. That would be perfect for the Apache, which was designed specifically to fight Warsaw Pact forces in that sort of terrain. 

/rant off. We love ya, ED!

I have a hard time buying into the concept that the politics between East and West are influencing ED's decision on which area of the world to map, especially in a game designed to pit the military forces of East and West against each other. Go into the mission editor and its USA vs Russia all day long. Nor do I believe that ED has its development schedule set to follow the clock over at IL2, or visa versa. While there is no doubt likely going to be some competition between the two as they both share a similar market space, they are both pursuing two very different strategies, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

But I agree with the OP and the point he is raising, although with some slight differences.

Regarding the Marianas map, I think the OP hit the nail on the head in pointing out the the map has a much stronger relevance to WWII scenarios, but I also think the map is really a win/win for ED and this community. My guess is the OP is spot on in pointing out that the release of the WWII version is likely waiting for the assets to arrive, but as another free map, and I think that is the important point so I will underline for emphasis "FREE", it is meant to deliver on all fronts to attract more customers. While we are all waiting for the WWII Pacific to arrive, the Marianas map already supports the Super Carrier module and the other naval assets already here, and just as importantly IMO, the non military/trainer aircraft in the SIM. The Marianas map provides a very beautiful tropical setting that almost beckons you to jump in a CEII/Yak 52 and go for a sunset cruise. But the maps full potential IMO will only be realized with the release of its WWII version.

Clearly there seems to be a logical misstep in the development of the Normandy/Channel maps, but I think it is mostly related to the historical context in which the Normandy map was made. It would make much more sense if the Channel was part of Normandy from the start, but given the state of technology and the resources available when Normandy was announced, making it bigger might have been out of reach at that time. This is why I don't think maps should be tied to a specific date. If Ugra would have been able to include the Channel/London, it wouldn't matter that Normandy contains the Atlantic wall, or what Cherbourg looks like because nobody would be landing at Utah beach if the users intention was to recreate the battle of Britain or the rescue at Dunkirk. I get why ED decided to make a Channel map, but had it been included with the first WWII map, the logical map to add would have been the rest of France/Germany. But it is what it is.

I see the same issues that plague the Normandy/Channel maps cropping up again with the Persian Gulf map, which could have been made much more relevant had it included Kuwait. But the map even as it stands now still represents a very important strategic part of the world, and I think ED was right to add it.

Personally I would separate the argument for a Korea map and the Nevada map because I think both are needed. The obvious reasons for Korea don't need to be discussed further, but as an important part of US Air force operations, the Nevada map makes perfect sense in DCS especially with such a large US customer base. I think the argument though was that a Korea map is still missing when it shouldn't be.

And yes, A Germany map that could accommodate anything from Seelow Heights/Berlin to the Fulda gap on a single map would make perfect sense, and one I am sure we will likely see in the future, although more than likely as separate maps.

And with the rise in popularity of helicopters, maps like Afghanistan are sure to become more important. But it leaves me wondering, where the ell is Vietnam? 


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanistan - would be a really interesting map… but my concern would be that both “recent” conflicts were strictly asymmetric A2G scenarios in terms of air campaigns (if you ignore a few tussles with PAF)

Marianas - beautiful scenery, but totally unconvinced on how it would work for WW2 setting…😳.  To make any sense, the islands would need to be Japanese held with US forces being carrier based. Anything post-Turkey Shoot would be pretty pointless, but the current maps have the post liberation late war bomber strips

South Atlantic - has the potential to be up there with Syria. Stunning landscapes and a real contender for Cold War stand offs 

Guadalcanal / Solomons - makes the most sense as a WW2 PTO map👍  Land, sea and an ongoing, bitterly fought contest.  Timeline options for both sides to be carrier or land based. Interesting naval ops

Norwegian Coast - Give us Murmansk to Trondheim… huge potential for any era from 1940 to the near future


Edited by rkk01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 9:10 PM, Taz1004 said:

It's just my speculation but ED being Russian company with US following, they're avoiding regions that both side have political interest in.  Korea and Taiwan for example.

 

But we did get the Persian Gulf map. The US has a military presence in the UAE, and Iran and Russia are strategic allies. Iran flies MiG 29s, Su-20/22s, and there's speculation that Russia is going to provide them with Su-35s. That map is tailor-made for a UAE-Iranian conflict, which would very much be a clash of US and Russian interests. 

 

On 1/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, DN308 said:

It just sounds like a way to compete with IL-2 great battles, giving the map and some modules that IL-2 players beg for years now (battle of Britain and France, Normandy, pacific theatre of operations, Mosquito). 

Simple, they just attract IL-2 players in DCS World, that’s it.

 

I totally agree that focusing on Normandy or the Battle of Britain (or the Pacific theater!) would be smart, as those are big holes in IL-2's lineup (at least until they release their upcoming Normandy campaign). But their approach to WWII content seems haphazard, almost like they are randomly drawing projects out of a hat. For example, consider ED's WWII-era modules, in order of release. And yes--I know that not all of these are ED's modules, but even if you narrow the list to just their projects, it still doesn't really feel like they have a coherent plan...

P-51D Mustang: Introduced in the spring of 1944, flew in the Normandy invasion, and for the remainder of the war. Iconic aircraft, good start. 

Fw 190 D-9 Dora: German air units got the first D-9s in September of 1944. At that point the Allies had (mostly) liberated France and were fighting the Germans in the Low Countries. 

Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst: First models were introduced in late October of 1944. Fought in the Battle of the Bulge.  

Normandy map: In 2017, DCS finally released a map for their growing warbird collection, but it was an incredibly weird choice based on their existing modules. Because while the P-51D flew over Normandy, the Fw 190 D-9 and the Bf 109 K-4 were both Battle of the Bulge planes. It would have made a LOT of sense for ED to release an Ardennes map, as all three of these aircraft clashed there. But nope--we get Normandy.

At this point, you would think that ED would be thinking either "We need to get an appropriate map for the three aircraft that we have," or "We need to get more aircraft that fought in Operation Overlord." Or, ideally, both of those things. So, what was their next project?

Spitfire LF Mk. IX: Okay, cool--the IX's went into service in early 1943, but they did fight in the Normandy invasion. So, now we have two Allied planes that fought in Operation Overlord... and no Axis planes. Theater-appropriate Axis planes, please!

Polikarpov I-16: WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON? This Soviet plane went into service in 1935, and first flew in the Spanish Civil War. They were massively outclassed by the German fighters in the early months of Operation Barbarossa, and by 1943 the USSR was no longer using them. Did this plane even fly over the western front? 

Fw 190 A-8: Okay, FINALLY we get an Axis plane that fought at Normandy. 

P-47D Thunderbolt: I am predisposed to love the Jug, and ED is flipping the script a bit by including two variants with the module. But the D-30 is post Normandy, and the D-40 is a late-war plane. Sure wish we had an Ardennes map!

Channel map: ED finally releases a second map for their warbirds, and it is ANOTHER MAP OF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL. This map is shifted a bit east, and includes the Port of London, which would make it ideal for depicting the Battle of Britain, if the number of existing DCS warbirds that fought in the Battle of Britain weren't zero. 

Mosquito FB VI: Okay, introducing a twin-engine, multi-role plane into the warbird lineup is a good idea, IMHO, but they still have zero BoB planes, as this variant did not go into service until mid-1942. 

I saw someone on reddit joke once that the "C" in DCS should stand for "Cockpit" rather than "Combat," and when it comes to the WWII era, there's some truth to that. ED does an amazing job simulating these aircraft, but they do a pretty poor job simulating the conflicts in which they were used. IL-2 is lightyears ahead in that respect--especially when it comes to single-player content. I would kill for an IL-2-style career mode for DCS's P-47D. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ben Sones said:

 

But we did get the Persian Gulf map. The US has a military presence in the UAE, and Iran and Russia are strategic allies. Iran flies MiG 29s, Su-20/22s, and there's speculation that Russia is going to provide them with Su-35s. That map is tailor-made for a UAE-Iranian conflict, which would very much be a clash of US and Russian interests. 

 

 

I totally agree that focusing on Normandy or the Battle of Britain (or the Pacific theater!) would be smart, as those are big holes in IL-2's lineup (at least until they release their upcoming Normandy campaign). But their approach to WWII content seems haphazard, almost like they are randomly drawing projects out of a hat. For example, consider ED's WWII-era modules, in order of release. And yes--I know that not all of these are ED's modules, but even if you narrow the list to just their projects, it still doesn't really feel like they have a coherent plan...

P-51D Mustang: Introduced in the spring of 1944, flew in the Normandy invasion, and for the remainder of the war. Iconic aircraft, good start. 

Fw 190 D-9 Dora: German air units got the first D-9s in September of 1944. At that point the Allies had (mostly) liberated France and were fighting the Germans in the Low Countries. 

Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst: First models were introduced in late October of 1944. Fought in the Battle of the Bulge.  

Normandy map: In 2017, DCS finally released a map for their growing warbird collection, but it was an incredibly weird choice based on their existing modules. Because while the P-51D flew over Normandy, the Fw 190 D-9 and the Bf 109 K-4 were both Battle of the Bulge planes. It would have made a LOT of sense for ED to release an Ardennes map, as all three of these aircraft clashed there. But nope--we get Normandy.

At this point, you would think that ED would be thinking either "We need to get an appropriate map for the three aircraft that we have," or "We need to get more aircraft that fought in Operation Overlord." Or, ideally, both of those things. So, what was their next project?

Spitfire LF Mk. IX: Okay, cool--the IX's went into service in early 1943, but they did fight in the Normandy invasion. So, now we have two Allied planes that fought in Operation Overlord... and no Axis planes. Theater-appropriate Axis planes, please!

Polikarpov I-16: WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON? This Soviet plane went into service in 1935, and first flew in the Spanish Civil War. They were massively outclassed by the German fighters in the early months of Operation Barbarossa, and by 1943 the USSR was no longer using them. Did this plane even fly over the western front? 

Fw 190 A-8: Okay, FINALLY we get an Axis plane that fought at Normandy. 

P-47D Thunderbolt: I am predisposed to love the Jug, and ED is flipping the script a bit by including two variants with the module. But the D-30 is post Normandy, and the D-40 is a late-war plane. Sure wish we had an Ardennes map!

Channel map: ED finally releases a second map for their warbirds, and it is ANOTHER MAP OF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL. This map is shifted a bit east, and includes the Port of London, which would make it ideal for depicting the Battle of Britain, if the number of existing DCS warbirds that fought in the Battle of Britain weren't zero. 

Mosquito FB VI: Okay, introducing a twin-engine, multi-role plane into the warbird lineup is a good idea, IMHO, but they still have zero BoB planes, as this variant did not go into service until mid-1942. 

I saw someone on reddit joke once that the "C" in DCS should stand for "Cockpit" rather than "Combat," and when it comes to the WWII era, there's some truth to that. ED does an amazing job simulating these aircraft, but they do a pretty poor job simulating the conflicts in which they were used. IL-2 is lightyears ahead in that respect--especially when it comes to single-player content. I would kill for an IL-2-style career mode for DCS's P-47D. 

Remember Normandy map, Bf-109K-4, Spitfire Mk.XI, P-47 and a future Me262 coming from a KS with ED rescue them.

ED only build a P-51D initially as a testbed to build a prop warfighter into DCS and after, make the Fw-190D-9, Fw-190A-8 and Mosquito FB.VI with support of Fighter Collection and Nick Grey, with some rumors about a F6F hellcat (connected with Marianas) and BoB aircraft (connected with the channel map) in a future. None of them has been centred on a specific map.

WW2 Assets pack has build by the old KS Assets team rescue and integrated part into ED Team.

Polykarpov I-16 was build by Octopus-G 3rd Party and prepard a new module none confirmed, only has show a La-7? pic.

F4-u Corsair with Pacific assets by Magnitude 3.

IL-2 has none to do with DCS Wolrd, has Worlds apparts. ED has working on a RTS Dynamic campaing, waiting news about them.

About maps:
- Caucassus map was initially a extension of the old LOMAC Crymea map. ED move to the east and delete Krimean detail zones by engine detail limitations when FC / Ka-50 was release to detail the Georgian Zone (That was before Georgian Civil War / Ossetian War / Abkhazia War). ED has talk actually Krimean has a sensible political zone and has none plan to return them or expand caucasus map with other "sensible" zones as Chechenia, Nagorno Karabag or Armenia.
- NTTR was build initially as a map build as a extint team with plan make them to the old A-10C with ED rescue and release as training zone.
- Gulf mas was centred on the old 2011–2012 Strait of Hormuz dispute and was never planned a detail zone on the south east zone on persian gulf or countries on that zones.
- The Channel map was build to make new maps technology.
- Marianas map (modern and WW2) has planned as free maps.
- The Afganistan map appears on a year newsletter some years ago.
- Some time ago, ED talk they has not plans yet to a Korea or Vietnam map. Actually continue waiting news, but on a interview with Wags, has interest to build a germany central plains map.
- Normandy map was build by the 3rd Party Ugra-Media as Syria map, and has making a Normandy expansion with Paris and London Areas. Has none about a WW2 or Syria assets pack (some midle east units was build by ED to the core).
- Leatherneck / M3 was initial plans to build a Iwo Jima map with some develop but was stoped and actually none develop has been confirmed. Actually has a "Pacific" Assets pack with the F4u Corsair.
- Heatblur was planned two maps some years ago with assets packs, one centred on AJ-37 Viggen centred on the baltic / Sweden zone, and a second centred on a sea zone (North Atlantic) to the F-14 Tomcat. That never has been confirmed.
- RAZBAM start a Map team some years ago and actually, working on a South Atlantic Map initially used to the AV-8B with modern US/UK/Russian assets, but has been move to a South Atlantic War time and after with a assets pack centred on UK / Argentine units and a Pucara module on progress.
- Octopus-G has none confirmed a WW2 east map or assets pack.
- Deka has none confirmed a map (that has denay a Taiwan map as very sensible matter). They has build a chinnese assets pack to your modules.
- Other 3rd parties has on the same situation, no plans of maps or assets.

About MiG 29s, Su-20/22s, and  Su-35s, ED has start to talk about a "futur" Mig-29A after Ka-50, but has denay a Su-35 by "political and Secret Law" on Russia. Has rumors about M3 can build a Su-20/22 but none confirmed yet.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Afghanistan - would be a really interesting map… but my concern would be that both “recent” conflicts were strictly asymmetric A2G scenarios in terms of air campaigns (if you ignore a few tussles with PAF)

Marianas - beautiful scenery, but totally unconvinced on how it would work for WW2 setting…😳.  To make any sense, the islands would need to be Japanese held with US forces being carrier based. Anything post-Turkey Shoot would be pretty pointless, but the current maps have the post liberation late war bomber strips

South Atlantic - has the potential to be up there with Syria. Stunning landscapes and a real contender for Cold War stand offs 

Guadalcanal / Solomons - makes the most sense as a WW2 PTO map👍  Land, sea and an ongoing, bitterly fought contest.  Timeline options for both sides to be carrier or land based. Interesting naval ops

Norwegian Coast - Give us Murmansk to Trondheim… huge potential for any era from 1940 to the near future

 

Some good points, but regarding the Marianas, it is a free map. Guadalcanal is something I imagine they would want to release as a pay to use. The Marianas is perfect as a free map because it doesn't encroach on areas that would be more appealing to the paying customer. If ED wants to increase the incentive to attract more people by including another free map into the mix,  and they want it to be able to add something for all of its product lines including the navy stuff (super carrier/ upcoming Essex), I think the Marianas is a really good choice for a map.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ben Sones said:

 

But we did get the Persian Gulf map. The US has a military presence in the UAE, and Iran and Russia are strategic allies. Iran flies MiG 29s, Su-20/22s, and there's speculation that Russia is going to provide them with Su-35s. That map is tailor-made for a UAE-Iranian conflict, which would very much be a clash of US and Russian interests. 

 

 

I totally agree that focusing on Normandy or the Battle of Britain (or the Pacific theater!) would be smart, as those are big holes in IL-2's lineup (at least until they release their upcoming Normandy campaign). But their approach to WWII content seems haphazard, almost like they are randomly drawing projects out of a hat. For example, consider ED's WWII-era modules, in order of release. And yes--I know that not all of these are ED's modules, but even if you narrow the list to just their projects, it still doesn't really feel like they have a coherent plan...

P-51D Mustang: Introduced in the spring of 1944, flew in the Normandy invasion, and for the remainder of the war. Iconic aircraft, good start. 

Fw 190 D-9 Dora: German air units got the first D-9s in September of 1944. At that point the Allies had (mostly) liberated France and were fighting the Germans in the Low Countries. 

Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst: First models were introduced in late October of 1944. Fought in the Battle of the Bulge.  

Normandy map: In 2017, DCS finally released a map for their growing warbird collection, but it was an incredibly weird choice based on their existing modules. Because while the P-51D flew over Normandy, the Fw 190 D-9 and the Bf 109 K-4 were both Battle of the Bulge planes. It would have made a LOT of sense for ED to release an Ardennes map, as all three of these aircraft clashed there. But nope--we get Normandy.

At this point, you would think that ED would be thinking either "We need to get an appropriate map for the three aircraft that we have," or "We need to get more aircraft that fought in Operation Overlord." Or, ideally, both of those things. So, what was their next project?

Spitfire LF Mk. IX: Okay, cool--the IX's went into service in early 1943, but they did fight in the Normandy invasion. So, now we have two Allied planes that fought in Operation Overlord... and no Axis planes. Theater-appropriate Axis planes, please!

Polikarpov I-16: WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON? This Soviet plane went into service in 1935, and first flew in the Spanish Civil War. They were massively outclassed by the German fighters in the early months of Operation Barbarossa, and by 1943 the USSR was no longer using them. Did this plane even fly over the western front? 

Fw 190 A-8: Okay, FINALLY we get an Axis plane that fought at Normandy. 

P-47D Thunderbolt: I am predisposed to love the Jug, and ED is flipping the script a bit by including two variants with the module. But the D-30 is post Normandy, and the D-40 is a late-war plane. Sure wish we had an Ardennes map!

Channel map: ED finally releases a second map for their warbirds, and it is ANOTHER MAP OF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL. This map is shifted a bit east, and includes the Port of London, which would make it ideal for depicting the Battle of Britain, if the number of existing DCS warbirds that fought in the Battle of Britain weren't zero. 

Mosquito FB VI: Okay, introducing a twin-engine, multi-role plane into the warbird lineup is a good idea, IMHO, but they still have zero BoB planes, as this variant did not go into service until mid-1942. 

I saw someone on reddit joke once that the "C" in DCS should stand for "Cockpit" rather than "Combat," and when it comes to the WWII era, there's some truth to that. ED does an amazing job simulating these aircraft, but they do a pretty poor job simulating the conflicts in which they were used. IL-2 is lightyears ahead in that respect--especially when it comes to single-player content. I would kill for an IL-2-style career mode for DCS's P-47D. 

Great post, I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Apparently, the history of the KS has a lot to do with the planes we have today.

But I wonder if building maps to represent an area in general as opposed to a specific date wouldn't be a better way to go. The date issue could be better handled by the added assets IMO. I don't see the problem of having the Maginot line and the Atlantic wall represented on the same map, because if I want to simulate the Allied invasion, I will be on the appropriate part of the map, likewise if I want to simulate an early war scenario. What is more important IMO are the assets we have to recreate the battles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For as long as I have subscribed to ED, they tend to keep quiet until their new planes, choppers, and maps are ready for early access release.  

When I looked in the forum for comments and suggestions for a Korea Map or a Strait of Taiwan Map, ED says, "No."  They do not want this to get political.  Many people have expressed a desire for maps for certain locations in the Far East such as the ones mentioned in this paragraph.  Even though ED will capitalize from these maps and virtual pilots will use them, it appears that ED's desire to avoid unwanted negative publicity is stronger than making money.  Since ED is a Russian company, there is the potential that Mr. Putin could make life difficult for them, if he wants to.  

I agree that there is no noticeable pattern to locations selected for maps.  It appears they are "works in progress."  Ideally, a global world map would be ideal for us to fly missions.  But, for the virtual maps, it looks like they are time intensive to create.  I have also suggested different maps and locations.  In the meantime, there are two things we can do:  wait and go to the forum section to recommend new maps.  When I read the map suggestions' forum, there are numerous places recommended. 

 


Edited by Mike Force Team
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Am 16.1.2022 um 01:58 schrieb Exorcet:

There is no need to pick a place that has seen real combat, and most DCS missions are hypothetical anyway.

Hmm, that may be due to cause and effect? 😉

  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...