Why do so many servers have western and eastern units on both sides?

[martinistripes]

I don't find much time for multiplayer but when I do, I always try to find a server with realistic sides. As an example, F-** and AH-** on one side and MiG-**/Su-** and Mi-** on the other. But it seems this is not a popular choice amongst server administrators. I find the vast majority of servers have both units on both sides. I fully understand this sim is a sandbox and we can make completely fictional scenarios. I also understand that different countries operate the same aircraft. However, to me it seems (perhaps) lazy to just allow all units on both sides. It's also not very immersive. Can any server administrators shed light on why this happens?

[Hiob]

Just an assumption. "Balancing" isn't a real world issue of course, but admins who want to provide a fairly balanced experience on their server may choose to do it. When strictly sticking to redfor vs bluefor, redfore would undoubtedly be at a big disadvantage with the units currently provided by DCS.

I'm indifferent to either position.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Hiob

[martinistripes]

5 minutes ago, Hiob said:

redfor would undoubtedly be at a big disadvantage with the units currently provided by DCS.

Not sure, I fully buy into this when you account for the FC3 aircraft (Su-27 and MiG-29S) which can be operated by more casual players. Also, the Mi-24 now has R-60 which makes it dangerous against other helicopters and CAS aircraft.

[Hiob]

There are capable Aircraft on both sides, no question. And I'm not really equipped to argue about that topic. That is just what I think to have noticed as a common ground. Either way, when you just offer all aircraft to all parties, you have an even playing field - and that may be the reason for it. Let's wait if an actual provider comment on the topic.

[ak22]

I think it because most 

49 minutes ago, martinistripes said:

Not sure, I fully buy into this when you account for the FC3 aircraft (Su-27 and MiG-29S) which can be operated by more casual players. Also, the Mi-24 now has R-60 which makes it dangerous against other helicopters and CAS aircraft.

They are older generation planes when they come up against planes with good situation awareness (data link, Morden RWR) and the AIM-102C they get stomped, if you want realistic setting check out cold enigmas war servers. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by ak22

[Kang]

I guess because most servers aren't set up to go with Cold War scenarios. Some are. But then, if you set your scenario in the Cold War you severely limit what you can do with all the 2000s modules being excluded from the start.

[martinistripes]

1 hour ago, ak22 said:

if you want realistic setting check out cold enigmas war servers. 

 

Thanks, I will look out for them

[fargo007]

This could be accurate to a certain extent. Alliances can and do change over time.

Iran for instance has/had F-14's, AH-1 Cobras, Phantoms, F5's, Huey, Chinook, CH-53, etc.  

http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Iran/

And there is no shortage of Western countries operating Eastern bloc aircraft either. 

[Kang]

6 hours ago, fargo007 said:

And there is no shortage of Western countries operating Eastern bloc aircraft either. 

Indeed. Just take a quick peek at the list of former eastern bloc countries that are now quite firmly part of 'the west', carrying over a lot of equipment and often upgrading it themselves since. It makes Pu vile dictators cry at night.

Or as mentioned the fact that Iran is, as of now, the only operator of F-14 Tomcats.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Kang

[martinistripes]

6 hours ago, Kang said:

Indeed. Just take a quick peek at the list of former eastern bloc countries that are now quite firmly part of 'the west', carrying over a lot of equipment and often upgrading it themselves since. It makes Pu vile dictators cry at night.

Or as mentioned the fact that Iran is, as of now, the only operator of F-14 Tomcats.

 

I know all this. But it's still unrealistic that both sides would have exactly the same equipment. Sure, include some F-14s on redfor and maybe a couple of Mi-8 on blufor (as a mock Mi-17). But both sides with F-18? Or both sides with Ka-50? Just doesn't work for me as a believable scenario.

And you can still balance even when both sides have different aircraft. If you feel blufor has better fighters, give redfor more SAMs. If blufor has an advantage in tanks, give redfor more CAS slots. It creates a more unique challenge on the server.

As a bonus, you can then remove labels and map icons and do some proper IFF.

Well this is just how I feel about most servers, and you can just tell me, "run your own server, if you don't like what's on offer". Which is fine. I was just interested in why server admins were doing it this way (both sides have everything).

[Kang]

15 hours ago, martinistripes said:

Well this is just how I feel about most servers, and you can just tell me, "run your own server, if you don't like what's on offer". Which is fine. I was just interested in why server admins were doing it this way (both sides have everything).

Well, always an option, but no, I perfectly get what you're saying. There certainly are servers that are somewhat dedicated to the 'Cold War' scenarios who might make a bit more sense about that, but obviously that limits the set of available aircraft even more, so I yea, I guess for many servers that's not much of a concern. To be fair, many of the popular servers are basically so centered on Fox3-jousting that visual IFF is barely even a thing.

If you want a slightly more cynical take: perhaps releasing modules more or less at random wasn't such a great policy after all.

[statrekmike]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:08 AM, martinistripes said:

I know all this. But it's still unrealistic that both sides would have exactly the same equipment. Sure, include some F-14s on redfor and maybe a couple of Mi-8 on blufor (as a mock Mi-17). But both sides with F-18? Or both sides with Ka-50? Just doesn't work for me as a believable scenario.

And you can still balance even when both sides have different aircraft. If you feel blufor has better fighters, give redfor more SAMs. If blufor has an advantage in tanks, give redfor more CAS slots. It creates a more unique challenge on the server.

As a bonus, you can then remove labels and map icons and do some proper IFF.

Well this is just how I feel about most servers, and you can just tell me, "run your own server, if you don't like what's on offer". Which is fine. I was just interested in why server admins were doing it this way (both sides have everything).

 

 It is important to understand that for DCS's (very) dedicated public multiplayer community, it isn't really possible to do realistic scenarios or even semi-realistic aircraft selections on a per-team basis simply because DCS was never built for a balanced multiplayer experience in the first place. It's very underlying DNA just isn't compatible with the kind of balance you need for that kind of thing. As such, those who run the servers and those who make the scenarios for those servers have to find ways to artificially compensate by implementing their own balancing measures. This is also why you are not likely to see terribly realistic "PvE" scenarios on public servers either. That scene demands a certain level of accessibility that doesn't really allow for a whole lot of strict realism. 

 

  In a lot of ways, DCS's public multiplayer scene is a ENTIRELY different world when compared to the private sever (for organized groups) co-op scene and the single player scene. A lot of the logic one would apply to co-op or single player missions to make them more realistic or authentic feeling would make public servers less viable. 

 

  The PvP servers that have the same planes on both sides are doing that because they want a artificially balanced experience for the sake of a fair fight. That is obviously not going to be important for every DCS player (it certainly isn't important for me) but it does mean you need to go into that scene with very heavily adjusted expectations in regards to realism.