What is the best way to increase the value of the WWII assets pack?

[Callsign112]

For me the best way would be to add more capable Ai infantry units. There are currently no MG's and no way for Ai infantry to deal with armor. Adding infantry with MG's and AT weapons would be the #1 value addition to the pack IMO.

Second would be Russian assets.

It would be nice to see the WWII assets pack expand beyond the boarders of a specific time and place.

[unlikely_spider]

Stukas

[Jagdgeschwader]

vor 54 Minuten schrieb unlikely_spider:

Stukas

Heinkel HE 111, IL2, ME 262, BF 110))

[DD_Fenrir]

21 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

Heinkel HE 111, IL2, ME 262, BF 110))

All largely irrelevant to the WW2 maps we have.

The following would be far more useful.

 

Ships:

Axis Destroyer

Axis Minesweeper

Axis Tanker

Axis Cargo Vessel

Allied Destroyer

Allied Minesweeper

Allied Liberty Ship

Allied T2 Tanker Ship

Allied Fighter Direction Tender

 

Ground units:

Nebelwerfer

Luftwaffe Unarmed Ground Crew

Axis Fuel Bowser

Axis Airfield Fire Fighting Truck

USAAF Unarmed Ground Crew

RAF Unarmed Ground Crew

Allied Ambulance

Allied Radar array AMES 25 

Allied Fuel Bowser

Allied Airfield Fire Fighting Truck

Allied Ambulance

 

Air Units

Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib

Bf 109G-6/14

B-26C Marauder

B-25C Mitchell

P-38J Lightning

P-51B Mustang

P-47D-22 Thunderbolt (Razorback)

Ju 52

Do 217

 

 

If you had to include Eastern Front (not a bad idea, incidentally - the poor old Ishzak does seem a little lonely) then the following would be a good idea:

T-34 Model 1943

Bf 109E-7

Panzer III Ausf. J

GAZ-MM

25 mm automatic air defence gun M1940 (72-K)

[Callsign112]

Great suggestions everyone, I completely get the request for the much needed air frames.

@DD_Fenrir, I totally get the logic behind the desire to have assets linked to a specific time and place especially when it comes to MP scenarios with competing planes.

My hope though is that as DCS grows and we get more areas mapped out, that we would have all of the WWII assets in one place. I wouldn't complain if they came out with an assets pack for each theater, but it would make more sense IMO to keep the WWII assets together.

Great suggestions all the way around BTW. I would especially like to see a PzIII added. Even if we stay just within the confines of Normandy, they weren't there in large numbers, but they were there. Mostly as command units.

[Jagdgeschwader]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb DD_Fenrir:

All largely irrelevant to the WW2 maps we have.

Irrelevant? 

The Heinkels HE 111 and BF 110s flew in almost every theater of war (Including Caucasus and Normandy).
The IL 2 flew over the Caucasus (All modifications).
ME 262 flew in Normandy and in some places in Russia (I don't remember exactly).

I would like to see all what you've mentioned too, but for all that we need a WW2 Caucasus map and an expansion for both Normandy and The Channel maps.

Edit: I may be wrong about ME 262 and Normandy, need to check about that again.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Jagdgeschwader

[DD_Fenrir]

6 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

Irrelevant? 

Yes, largely, especially in relation to the many types that you would be far more likely to encounter given the timescales most consistent with the current maps defined eras.

 

6 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

The Heinkels HE 111 and BF 110s flew in almost every theater of war (Including Caucasus and Normandy).

The Bf 110 from 1941 in the west was relegated to Nightfighting (which DCS currently doesn't have the infrastructure to support in much if any depth) and the He 111 was encountered infrequently, it having taken very much a third line status and being primarily used as a transport and trainer.

These do not represent frontline types commonly encountered. They are essentially one-offs. Crikey, in the years 1941-43 even the Siebel Si 204 and Junkers W 34 feature more heavily in the combat reports of the day fighter arms of the Allies than the Bf 110 or He 111.

 

6 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

The IL 2 flew over the Caucasus (All modifications).

Agreed but we don't have a WW2 Caucasus map or any other WW2 aircraft relevant to the Kuban campaign (Yak-1, Yak-7, LaGG-3, P-39, Bf 10F-4/G-2)  available, so again, a white elephant.

 

6 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

ME 262 flew in Normandy and in some places in Russia (I don't remember exactly).

Me 262s did indeed fly one or two sorties as bombers at the very end of the Normandy campaign. But again compared to the 700 odd B-26s that were available for operations over the battlefield, which do you think is more credible to represent a typically encountered type?

As for Russia, I assume you mean Eastern Front, as by the time the 262 entered service the front in the East was a couple of hundred miles west of the Russian border....

For that you'd need a WW2 Berlin/Prussia map to be of much relevance. Which we don't have.

Edited March 11, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Jagdgeschwader]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb DD_Fenrir:

Yes, largely, especially in relation to the many types that you would be far more likely to encounter given the timescales most consistent with the current maps defined eras.

 

The Bf 110 from 1941 in the west was relegated to Nightfighting (which DCS currently doesn't have the infrastructure to support in much if any depth) and the He 111 was encountered infrequently, it having taken very much a third line status and being primarily used as a transport and trainer.

These do not represent frontline types commonly encountered. They are essentially one-offs. Crikey, in the years 1941-43 even the Siebel Si 204 and Junkers W 34 feature more heavily in the combat reports of the day fighter arms of the Allies than the Bf 110 or He 111.

 

Agreed but we don't have a WW2 Caucasus map or any other WW2 aircraft relevant to the Kuban campaign (Yak-1, Yak-7, LaGG-3, P-39, Bf 10F-4/G-2)  available, so again, a white elephant.

 

Me 262s did indeed fly one or two sorties as bombers at the very end of the Normandy campaign. But again compared to the 700 odd B-26s that were available for operations over the battlefield, which do you think is more credible to represent a typically encountered type?

As for Russia, I assume you mean Eastern Front, as by the time the 262 entered service the front in the East was a couple of hundred miles west of the Russian border....

For that you'd need a WW2 Berlin/Prussia map to be of much relevance. Which we don't have.

 

Thanks for the info, good to learn something new, but still it is a little bit strange to have the bf-109 K4 and not for example the G6 (Which was a more "Encountered type" and a lot more of them were produced than the K4 modification). 

Or why don't we have any Stukas? They flew on every theater of war.

Anyway, it would be nice to have all them as an expansion for the current WW2 Assets pack regardless of how often they were encountered in reality.

[Callsign112]

I think @DD_Fenrir not only makes a good point, but his point would be well supported by the community in general, especially for the MP crowd. First there is the historical aspect itself that is worth preserving, and then having Allied/Axis planes from a similar time period also helps balance on-line game play. It doesn't guarantee success, but there are a lot of good reasons why it is important and makes sense. Having said that, I am sure its happened more than once that an I-16 has shot down a K4 on a DCS server.

But as an assets pack, or as flyable modules in general, their use is entirely up to the person using them regardless of SP/MP game play. The problem I have with the strict confinement to the Normandy invasion date is that I can only recreate that scenario so many times, and from so many angles before it starts to get a little old. I would love to be able to recreate Dunkirk for example, but lack so many of the assets that it is almost impossible to make it look believable.

I think one of the easiest ways ED could make DCS WWII more relevant would be to make more of WWII accessible.

[DD_Fenrir]

24 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think @DD_Fenrir not only makes a good point, but his point would be well supported by the community in general, especially for the MP crowd. First there is the historical aspect itself that is worth preserving, and then having Allied/Axis planes from a similar time period also helps balance on-line game play. It doesn't guarantee success, but there are a lot of good reasons why it is important and makes sense. Having said that, I am sure its happened more than once that an I-16 has shot down a K4 on a DCS server.

But as an assets pack, or as flyable modules in general, their use is entirely up to the person using them regardless of SP/MP game play. The problem I have with the strict confinement to the Normandy invasion date is that I can only recreate that scenario so many times, and from so many angles before it starts to get a little old. I would love to be able to recreate Dunkirk for example, but lack so many of the assets that it is almost impossible to make it look believable.

I think one of the easiest ways ED could make DCS WWII more relevant would be to make more of WWII accessible.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment; pushing the chronological purview of the Asset Pack both forward and back has some merit, but only if it supports aircraft types and maps we have in game.

The key is this: If you are prepared to fight recreations of historical battles (1) on maps that do not represent the historical area and (2) with aircraft that aren't historically relevant then why do you care about (3) units that aren't historically accurate?

Why is using a panzer IV instead of a III against a 75mm Sherman in lieu of an M3 Lee to recreate an El Alamein scenario using the Persian Gulf map such a problem?

The arguments are inconsistent.

Half the time from the cockpit of a fighter-bomber you won't tell the difference of armour types (and don't really care anyway) and given the challenge of hitting such small targets, it doesn't really matter. What you are after are troops, trucks, trains, artillery - all of which we have now - ships (a little sparse on the Axis side, but both need fleshing out) and radars (Allies suffer in the latter example).

My key point is that by fleshing out the Normandy/Channel with chronologically relevant units we often bring that desired usefulness for wider scope anyway; for example a USN Destroyer could be useful for both Normandy and the WW2 Marianas. An Austin K2 ambulance would benefit the Normandy scenarios and a future foray to the Western Desert, should that ever happen.

Should DCS make a move later or earlier in the war then yes, 100%, let's have AI Ju-87Bs and He-111s to fight in our Spitfire Mk I over a modified Channel map when DCS: Battle of Britain appears; let's have the Yaks, Laggs T-34s and Panzer IIIs when DCS: Kursk is announced.

Until then let's ensure that the Asset Pack remains relevant to providing depth to what we have.

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I don't disagree with the general sentiment; pushing the chronological purview of the Asset Pack both forward and back has some merit, but only if it supports aircraft types and maps we have in game.

The key is this: If you are prepared to fight recreations of historical battles (1) on maps that do not represent the historical area and (2) with aircraft that aren't historically relevant then why do you care about (3) units that aren't historically accurate?

Why is using a panzer IV instead of a III against a 75mm Sherman in lieu of an M3 Lee to recreate an El Alamein scenario using the Persian Gulf map such a problem?

The arguments are inconsistent.

Half the time from the cockpit of a fighter-bomber you won't tell the difference of armour types (and don't really care anyway) and given the challenge of hitting such small targets, it doesn't really matter. What you are after are troops, trucks, trains, artillery - all of which we have now - ships (a little sparse on the Axis side, but both need fleshing out) and radars (Allies suffer in the latter example).

My key point is that by fleshing out the Normandy/Channel with chronologically relevant units we often bring that desired usefulness for wider scope anyway; for example a USN Destroyer could be useful for both Normandy and the WW2 Marianas. An Austin K2 ambulance would benefit the Normandy scenarios and a future foray to the Western Desert, should that ever happen.

Should DCS make a move later or earlier in the war then yes, 100%, let's have AI Ju-87Bs and He-111s to fight in our Spitfire Mk I over a modified Channel map when DCS: Battle of Britain appears; let's have the Yaks, Laggs T-34s and Panzer IIIs when DCS: Kursk is announced.

Until then let's ensure that the Asset Pack remains relevant to providing depth to what we have.

 

 

 

 

1 and 2 are out of necessity. In other words, we can only make do with what we have. 3 is simply the request meant to address the issues of 1 and 2. In other words, asking for the PzIII, Ju-87, G6, maps that better represent all fronts... what ever is meant to give us those options. 

But I see historical accuracy as an interest point. It is very important that it is there, but the bigger point for me is how to build a stronger case for DCS WWII.

Adding a Stuka to the lineup takes nothing away from historical accuracy, but DCS WWII will be missing that element of history until it gets added. The same can be said for every other plane missing from DCS WWII like the Me-262. As a combat simulator that specializes in jet warfare, I would have thought the Me-262 would be very high on the list of things to do not just because it was part of the kick-starter, but because of what it would represent to DCS World in general. 

And a server could simply lock certain planes out if historical match ups are the flavor of the day, but you can't fly something that doesn't exist.

Personally, I think it would have been more ideal to have a map of France that included both the Maginot line and the Atlantic wall instead of just Normandy so that it could be used from start to finish, but these things also have a context to how they came about. So we can't really fault whatever decision was taken back then, all we can do is look forward and plan for the future.

Its not that I don't appreciate the point your making, its that I think DCS WWII is going to have to break out of Normandy if it wants to appeal to a larger audience. The Mariana Islands will help, but there is so much more.

[Beirut]

On 3/9/2022 at 12:49 PM, Callsign112 said:

For me the best way would be to add more capable Ai infantry units. There are currently no MG's and no way for Ai infantry to deal with armor. Adding infantry with MG's and AT weapons would be the #1 value addition to the pack IMO.

 

Yes.

 

On 3/9/2022 at 12:49 PM, Callsign112 said:

Second would be Russian assets.

 

Yes again. 

[streakeagle]

The best way to increase the value of the WW2 assets pack isn't adding more units of any kind. Make it free. No matter how many useful assets are added, they are worthless if I can't use them in multiplayer missions because most people refuse to buy it.

Edited March 14, 2022 by streakeagle

[Rudel_chw]

2 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

Make it free. No matter how many useful assets are added, they are worthless if I can't use them in multiplayer missions because most people refuse to buy it.

They are worthwhile to me, since I dont do MP anymore … 

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The best way to increase the value of the WW2 assets pack isn't adding more units of any kind. Make it free. No matter how many useful assets are added, they are worthless if I can't use them in multiplayer missions because most people refuse to buy it.

 

Fair point, the problem is that would add value only for the people that didn't purchase it. For the people that did purchase it, your suggestion would actually take value away. I'm interested in knowing what would add value.

If you could have a must have asset added to the pack, what would it be?

[streakeagle]

I purchased it, but I cannot use it. The value is zero if I cannot put WW2 assets in missions because the majority of people playing co-op missions can't or won't buy WW2 assets. If you are playing single player only, I get your point. But after years of playing single player only, I found a group of people that I get along with really well online with similar interests, but in the effort to bring in more players, we can't use WW2 assets which are critical to missions set in Korea and Vietnam because 1950s and 1960s assets don't exist and WW2 assets are the only things even close or in some cases, WW2 assets were still being used in Korea and Vietnam. In particular, flak is a big issue. The free flak 18 was broken when the flak upgrade requires the director that isn't free. There are other cases, but that is the big one since Soviet 100 mm and 85 mm flak that was used from WW2 to the present isn't in DCS World at all. So German 88mm is the only thing even close.

A must have WW2 asset for me is the Douglas A-26. It served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. If it was available, I would have it flying in weekly co-op missions and persistent server missions, especially in Korea. Fortunately, the A-20 is available and is close enough to reduce the urgency.

 

[Callsign112]

There have been a few really good suggestions, but the Invader would probably top the list for a lot of people I am sure. Hope we see it soon!

And I really get what your saying about the co-op mission thing.

But if the assets are so mission critical to co-op game play, I don't understand how an assets pack ($15) changes all that? I mean, after spending hundreds if not thousands on the setup to fly/drive/shoot in DCS, I find it hard to believe the same guy would draw the line at $15 for an assets pack, especially when he/she admittedly sees them as being important to the flying/driving/shooting.

I am curious to know, how large is your group and how many in the group don't have the assets pack? 

[streakeagle]

Everyone in the immediate group of about 8 regulars has the assets, but on many Sundays we bring in 2-8 new people. If we include WW2 assets, we don't get anyone. One of our regular visitors has the money and just doesn't see the value in buying it. So any time we include WW2 assets we lose one of the better pilots/flight leaders in our group.

[Rudel_chw]

Don't you have the same problem with Maps, as not everyone has all the Maps? Don't you get forced to only create missions for the free maps?

[71st_AH Rob]

14 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But if the assets are so mission critical to co-op game play, I don't understand how an assets pack ($15) changes all that? I mean, after spending hundreds if not thousands on the setup to fly/drive/shoot in DCS, I find it hard to believe the same guy would draw the line at $15 for an assets pack, especially when he/she admittedly sees them as being important to the flying/driving/shooting.

Yet they do. My squad is now considerably smaller and maybe six fly DCS WWII now. The rest fly the other popular WWII flight sim.  Interestingly, I think all of the hold outs are American, the British and Canadian members purchased it.  Another dozen or so left for other squads that don't fly DCS or only fly modern.

You are right though, it is not about the $15 that the Asset Pack costs, it is about the customers perception of fairness and the Assets Pack "feels" like a big FU from ED to the WWII community reinforced by the glacial pace of development, particularly when contrasted with the volume of updates every month and news about the Hornet and F-16. 

 

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

Yet they do. My squad is now considerably smaller and maybe six fly DCS WWII now. The rest fly the other popular WWII flight sim.  Interestingly, I think all of the hold outs are American, the British and Canadian members purchased it.  Another dozen or so left for other squads that don't fly DCS or only fly modern.

You are right though, it is not about the $15 that the Asset Pack costs, it is about the customers perception of fairness and the Assets Pack "feels" like a big FU from ED to the WWII community reinforced by the glacial pace of development, particularly when contrasted with the volume of updates every month and news about the Hornet and F-16. 

 

Something in what you said there doesn't ring true though for me. You say it isn't about the $15, but about the perception of fairness. So in other words they feel that they are not getting their monies worth, which is like saying its about the $15.

And I don't know why it is, but every time the assets pack is mentioned regardless of the reason or purpose, this point gets brought up in connection with another WWII SIM. Its almost like there is an unspoken comparison being purposely orchestrated into the discussion.

I personally don't have the same perception, and in fact think the Assets pack adds a lot of value for me. But then again, I'm also a CA user which allows me to drive the assets and get into the ground war more. This is something that is not available on any other platform, and its a feature I support because I would like to see it develop further.

But in terms of value, I think the members of your squad have to ask themselves why they are here? There must be a reason why they purchased at least one of the DCS WWII planes. Regarding the pace of development, I agree that things seem to progress a lot slower than I would have ever imagined, but that problem is not isolated to DCS alone. The other SIM has the exact same issue, and maybe even worse. 

[Beirut]

On 3/15/2022 at 5:55 PM, 71st_AH Rob said:

 

You are right though, it is not about the $15 that the Asset Pack costs, it is about the customers perception of fairness and the Assets Pack "feels" like a big FU from ED to the WWII community reinforced by the glacial pace of development, particularly when contrasted with the volume of updates every month and news about the Hornet and F-16. 

 

It has to be remembered that ED allows the WWII community to try out each of the warbirds, as well as the Assets Packs and Combined Arms (to make the AP player useable) for two-weeks for free. That's two-months of WWII fighters for free. Plus the two-weeks of the Assets Pack. That's a lot of time to find the plane(s) you are happy with prior to purchasing them. And not to forget, you can also try all the maps. including the "WWII maps" of course.

 

Any perception of a big FU to the community by ED is a misperception I think. They are being very open, saying "Here's all our stuff, try it for free, and buy what you like". That's exceptionally fair in my book.  

[Gunfreak]

For me the most important is 42-43 109s and 190s. I mean how hard can it be for ED to make an AI unit based on the A8, but make it's performance more like earlier A models.  

After that more infantry units. Let us make real squads sections,  LMGs and SMGs. British,  German and American  also add humans to the artillery and AT guns.

After that allied planes to add more variations, like Typhoon.

[Callsign112]

+1 for all really good suggestions. I have often wondered this myself.

I mean you would think that once a general plane type is modeled, making variations of it would be a lot less labor intensive then modeling a completely different plane type from scratch.

And yes I agree, having the weapons manned would add a lot the SIM.

[Callsign112]

Currently we have no way of towing field guns, and we are very limited in what we can do in terms of fortifications. There are a couple wood structures and other tank obstacles included with the base game, but we could really use more options for above ground fortifications like sandbags and such.