Dumb missions and campaigns

[wowbagger]

Would love to have a higher percentage of missions, and (preferably) campaigns, which focus on getting your hands dirty rather than peering into TGP screens and dropping smart weapons from altitude.

I get that many of the aircraft are late model blocks and hi-tech TGPs have ruled the skies for the last 20 years, and TGPs are what the game does best, but dropping GBUs kinda feels the same from an A-10C or F-18 or and F-16 or a Harrier. The A-10 didn't get its bad ass reputation because of the technical wizardry which can now keep it circling out of harm's reach lobbing smart bombs. The Harrier has a cool built in, old school targeting system, do we need to slap a TGP on it too?

Perhaps some more Cold War stuff. I'd rather have missions which might take a few liberties with which block is being used when, but which also highlight the differences between the air frames rather than homogenizing everything towards a singular TGP simulator.

Okay, rant off. I know most have different tastes from my own.

Cheers

[Exorcet]

20 minutes ago, wowbagger said:

Would love to have a higher percentage of missions, and (preferably) campaigns, which focus on getting your hands dirty rather than peering into TGP screens and dropping smart weapons from altitude.

I get that many of the aircraft are late model blocks and hi-tech TGPs have ruled the skies for the last 20 years, and TGPs are what the game does best, but dropping GBUs kinda feels the same from an A-10C or F-18 or and F-16 or a Harrier.

Smart weapons were designed for a reason, the other side's technology isn't going to stand still. You don't have to limit JDAM strikes to MG armed buildings or SA-3 sites. Fight tougher opponents and suddenly employing smart weapons is just as exciting as using dumb bombs. The airframe also becomes more relevant. The speed to loft bombs and avoid missiles means a F-16 can approaching things different than a A-10.

Though on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with missions using older weapons. In a real war with peer opponents, smart weapons might get depleted over time, forcing the use of dumb weapons in their place. It's a simple idea, but general enough to be used in a wide range of DCS missions.

[wowbagger]

51 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Smart weapons were designed for a reason, the other side's technology isn't going to stand still. You don't have to limit JDAM strikes to MG armed buildings or SA-3 sites. Fight tougher opponents and suddenly employing smart weapons is just as exciting as using dumb bombs. The airframe also becomes more relevant. The speed to loft bombs and avoid missiles means a F-16 can approaching things different than a A-10.

Though on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with missions using older weapons. In a real war with peer opponents, smart weapons might get depleted over time, forcing the use of dumb weapons in their place. It's a simple idea, but general enough to be used in a wide range of DCS missions.

You still end up staring at a little green video screen  and letting your technology do all the work. It's an exercise of systems and procedures instead of piloting.

Who says missions have to be set in  the present? The maps we have lend themselves better, in my opinion, to previous eras than they do to current day.  And that will only increase when the upcoming maps are released. Maybe then we'll get some supporting ground units, less omniscient AI, and some more campaigns set in the 70s, 80s, 90s. 

[Gunfreak]

I can almost guarantee the F4 will get several campaigns. 

So will probably the A7 some time in the future.