what era should Eagle focus on when developing AI assets?

[upyr1]

IF ED were to focus on assets for any cold war era what would you pick.

I'm leaving out modern and World War II 

[Hairdo1-1]

Late cold war is great as several countries still use these assets in the modern era

[Gunfreak]

Are you talking ground, air or both.

ED needs to up their ground game. Generic desert infantry would be useful from the 50s to 90s. We now have Syria, PG and soon Sinai but now infantry to match. They haven't even bothered adding desert common to the red force infantry models. 

I understand it takes some time to model infantry but it's just modeling work. They'll just use the same coding as the other infantry. It's not like you have to do different armor or damage modeling etc.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Are you talking ground, air or both.

 

ED needs to up their ground game. Generic desert infantry would be useful from the 50s to 90s. We now have Syria, PG and soon Sinai but now infantry to match. They haven't even bothered adding desert common to the red force infantry models. 

I understand it takes some time to model infantry but it's just modeling work. They'll just use the same coding as the other infantry. It's not like you have to do different armor or damage modeling etc.

 

 

I'm talking about everything. Sea, Land and air. 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Hairdo1-1 said:

Late cold war is great as several countries still use these assets in the modern era

 

My vote is for the early though if I had gone with more eras late is low on my list. My rational is that if I turn on historical mode I can build a reasonable mission for the late era while I cannot do the same for early. 

[Northstar98]

I would say late Cold War for the time being - many assets are already good for it and it's the closest to being finished compared to anything else IMO. Now, while I'm definitely biased towards the late Cold War, the other reason why is I prefer to get 'x' finished before moving onto 'y' and personally, I think DCS could've been made much more rich in terms of making coherent scenarios had this approach been adopted from the start (more on that in this thread if anybody is interested).

However, I feel like this poll could be potentially misleading without including the other eras DCS covers, such as WWII and post Cold War (the latter could perhaps be split up into the 90s, 2000s, 2010s etc) and I say that as someone who's strongly interested in the Cold War period.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Northstar98

[Furiz]

I don't se Middle - Middle cold war there, and what about Late - Middle cold war, and Middle to Late Vietnam war era, and Past Late Cold Vietnam era

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I would say late Cold War for the time being - many assets are already good for it and it's the closest to being finished compared to anything else IMO. Now, while I'm definitely biased towards the late Cold War, the other reason I prefer to get 'x' finished before moving onto 'y' and personally, I think DCS could've been made much more rich in terms of making coherent scenarios had this approach been adopted from the start (more on that in this thread if anybody is interested).

However, I feel like this poll could be potentially misleading without including the other eras DCS covers, such as WWII and post Cold War (the latter could perhaps be split up into the 90s, 2000s, 2010s etc) and I say that as someone who's strongly interested in the Cold War period.

 

 

 

 

As you think they should focus on the late cold war, how much attention should they give to assets that would also work for the Vietnam era? IMHO assets that served in both eras should get priority 

Edited April 17, 2023 by upyr1

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

As you think they should focus on the late cold war, how much attention should they give to assets that would also work for the Vietnam era? IMHO assets that served in both eras should get priority

I don't think I could really give you a number and truth be told, where there are holes they should be filled. If 'x' particular asset works for both then that's 2 birds with one stone as it were.

There are a few Vietnam era modules coming like the F-8J and F-100D and they'll be pretty lonely without much in the way of assets for them, though we still haven't got a Vietnam map.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't think I could really give you a number and truth be told, where there are holes they should be filled. If 'x' particular asset works for both then that's 2 birds with one stone as it were.

There are a few Vietnam era modules coming like the F-8J and F-100D and they'll be pretty lonely without much in the way of assets for them, though we still haven't got a Vietnam map.

 

While I won't disagree with the importance of a map, I think assets are more important. I feel I can do more with historic assets and a modern map than the other way around. 

On 4/16/2023 at 9:48 AM, Furiz said:

I don't se Middle - Middle cold war there, and what about Late - Middle cold war, and Middle to Late Vietnam war era, and Past Late Cold Vietnam era

 

I don't know how you divide things I only know how I do.

Anyway out of my time frames, what did you vote for?

[Northstar98]

28 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

While I won't disagree with the importance of a map, I think assets are more important. I feel I can do more with historic assets and a modern map than the other way around.

Fair enough. Personally, I'm more about the complete package - a personal dream of mine is to be able to make missions that are as coherent as possible, at least as far as timeframe and theatre go.

For me that usually involves picking a historical or historically plausible conflict, picking a timeframe (in the case of conflicts that had longer durations, such as the Cold War and WWII), picking a relevant theatre and then populating that theatre with as a historically consistent order of battle as possible (at least in terms of unit types and quantities). Generally I'm not that interested in roleplaying exact historical events (though there are definite exceptions), more so playing scenarios based on them.

I wouldn't be telling the truth if I didn't say that I have a strong preference for the late Cold War, but truth be told I don't really mind whether the scenario is WWII, Cold War or modern day, just so long as the modules, assets and maps are coherent and comprehensive enough to make plausible and rich scenarios, at least for scenarios intended to have more historical consistency.

28 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I don't know how you divide things I only know how I do.

Anyway out of my time frames, what did you vote for?

Furiz, at least last I checked, is somebody interested in the post 2000s, which wasn't an option.

Spoiler

Plus, I think this was an attempt to try and be funny and poke fun more than anything else, emphasis being on "attempt".

Edited April 17, 2023 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

On 4/15/2023 at 12:30 PM, Gunfreak said:

Are you talking ground, air or both.

ED needs to up their ground game. Generic desert infantry would be useful from the 50s to 90s. We now have Syria, PG and soon Sinai but now infantry to match. They haven't even bothered adding desert common to the red force infantry models. 

I understand it takes some time to model infantry but it's just modeling work. They'll just use the same coding as the other infantry. It's not like you have to do different armor or damage modeling etc.

 

 

As I stated before -the question is about everything. The ground and naval environments are both underdeveloped for all eras. Then we have eras with missing assets. 

My poll focuses on the cold war, since I think the WWII and modern eras are being developed nicely and it is the cold war that is the least developed especially the early period- which I voted for. the Vietnam era is my second choice. My rationale is that the I-16, MiG-15 and F-86 are missing proper red for assets and the gap will become worse with the La-7. 

The second era I would like to see them focus on is the Vietnam era late would be my thrid choice.  We have the MiG-19, F-100 and F-8 all coming up which are Vietnam era, the Huey, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E F-4E, A-6, and A-7 we either have or are in the works are all late cold war variants but some didn't miss the Vietnam war by much. So the focus should be on missing assets that cover both eras  

 

 

 

 

[WinterH]

First off, I am fairly strongly against any focus on any singular time frame. However, I do believe there are 3 that still should be expanded, as they already exist in DCS, and IMO also represent the most interesting and widely appealing time frames. These are:

1. WW II, at least the late War Europe to begin with. We do have a healthy amount of ground assets in payware pack, and the amount of freely accessible ones from the asset are a decent gesture. But aircraft, ships, and infantry require some expansion. Some basic USN/RN/KM destroyers and maybe 1 cruiser and 1 battleship each would cover the naval part, and as a bonus Allied ships can double as assets for upcoming Pacific side of things. Infantry is whole another topic I intend to create a thread for whenever I catch a break from work these days.
2. Late Cold War (1975-1990): In my opinion by far the most imporant and most interesting one, not to mention most fitting for the majority of existing and upcoming modules and assets. We mainly need more European ground asssets, US and EU air defense systems, and emplacements/towed weapons for both BLUE and RED sides of the fence. Recent addition of howitzers and AT guns to WW2 asset pack is really nice, and we already have  AA guns from this period too. Expansion for Cold War with likes of more mortars, howitzers, recoilless guns, ATGM and HMG positions would go a long way in fleshing things up and giving us new ways to make missions with. Older gen MANPADS for both sides of the Cold War is also a MUST at this point. Give us Redeye, early block Stinger, Strela-2, and Strela-3 at least, and maybe also Blowpipe etc.
3. Post Cold War-GWOT era up to maybe early to mid 2010s, but I'd rather say up to late 2000s: Not entirely my cup of tea, in fact I am not too fond of later scenarios/assets, but don't mind them as an occasional change of pace. However, there are others who are mainly interested in later stuff, and we already have existing and incoming stuff like F-16CM, F/A-18C Lot 20, F-15E, JF-17, Eurofighter Typhoon, AH-64D, ICH-47F etc which don't have a lot of contemporary air or grounds to play with/against. What we have is mostly thanks to DEKA's work in their Chinese Asset Pack, but other factions can use some assets for this period too. What I think is needed for this period are aircraft, infanty, weapon positions, artillery, especially rocket artillery.

 

Edit: and I still believe any focus on Vietnam specific, especially early to mid 'Nam specific assets would be counterproductive, and a missed opportunity at the expense of anything above. However, later 'Nam stuff would go as "nice to have" for my primarily preferred period of late cold war too to a degree at least. Also some earlier stuff like T-34/85 would multitask nicely between being a WW2, Korea, and even I think early Vietnam asset.

Edited April 17, 2023 by WinterH

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Fair enough. Personally, I'm more about the complete package - a personal dream of mine is to be able to make missions that are as coherent as possible, at least as far as timeframe and theatre go.

For me that usually involves picking a historical or historically plausible conflict, picking a timeframe (in the case of conflicts that had longer durations, such as the Cold War and WWII), picking a relevant theatre and then populating that theatre with as a historically consistent order of battle as possible (at least in terms of unit types and quantities). Generally I'm not that interested in roleplaying exact historical events (though there are definite exceptions), more so playing scenarios based on them.

I wouldn't be telling the truth if I didn't say that I have a strong preference for the late Cold War, but truth be told I don't really mind whether the scenario is WWII, Cold War or modern day, just so long as the modules, assets and maps are coherent and comprehensive enough to make plausible and rich scenarios, at least for scenarios intended to have more historical consistency.

 

This is why I always bring up the importance to think about an online eco system when developing modules and maps. This is also the reason I would rather see Centeral Europe get made before either Korea or Vietnam and ideally as a multi-era bundle. The region was the focus of US and Russian foreign policy for over 40 years. A late 1970s/ early 1980s map would be a good home for so many assets we either have now or that are in the works. Also an early cold war map might also work for WWII scenarios 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

First off, I am fairly strongly against any focus on any singular time frame. However, I do believe there are 3 that still should be expanded, as they already exist in DCS, and IMO also represent the most interesting and widely appealing time frames. These are:

 

I figure when developing individual assets the focus should always be given to those that have the longest service life with the fewest changes. So when it comes to either B-26 I would prefer the Invader over the Marauder since the Invader was in service for about over 20 years. Though the existing modules and theaters should be considered as well

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

1. WW II, at least the late War Europe to begin with. We do have a healthy amount of ground assets in payware pack, and the amount of freely accessible ones from the asset are a decent gesture. But aircraft, ships, and infantry require some expansion. Some basic USN/RN/KM destroyers and maybe 1 cruiser and 1 battleship each would cover the naval part, and as a bonus Allied ships can double as assets for upcoming Pacific side of things. Infantry is whole another topic I intend to create a thread for whenever I catch a break from work these days.

 

Even though I didn't have WWII as a choice, its not going to be too hard to build assets that bridge both eras- especially since the start date is 1945. Though I do think I should have listed it- since we have the Marianas in development that needs to be a focus too the main reason I didn't list WWII is because the WWII aset pack exists and they have mentioned plans for the pacific theater 

 

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

1. Late Cold War (1975-1990): In my opinion by far the most imporant and most interesting one, not to mention most fitting for the majority of existing and upcoming modules and assets. We mainly need more European ground asssets, US and EU air defense systems, and emplacements/towed weapons for both BLUE and RED sides of the fence. Recent addition of howitzers and AT guns to WW2 asset pack is really nice, and we already have  AA guns from this period too. Expansion for Cold War with likes of more mortars, howitzers, recoilless guns, ATGM and HMG positions would go a long way in fleshing things up and giving us new ways to make missions with. Older gen MANPADS for both sides of the Cold War is also a MUST at this point. Give us Redeye, early block Stinger, Strela-2, and Strela-3 at least, and maybe also Blowpipe etc.
2. Post Cold War-GWOT era up to maybe early to mid 2010s, but I'd rather say up to late 2000s: Not entirely my cup of tea, in fact I am not too fond of later scenarios/assets, but don't mind them as an occasional change of pace. However, there are others who are mainly interested in later stuff, and we already have existing and incoming stuff like F-16CM, F/A-18C Lot 20, F-15E, JF-17, Eurofighter Typhoon, AH-64D, ICH-47F etc which don't have a lot of contemporary air or grounds to play with/against. What we have is mostly thanks to DEKA's work in their Chinese Asset Pack, but other factions can use some assets for this period too. What I think is needed for this period are aircraft, infanty, weapon positions, artillery, especially rocket artillery.

 

Edit: and I still believe any focus on Vietnam specific, especially early to mid 'Nam specific assets would be counterproductive, and a missed opportunity at the expense of anything above. However, later 'Nam stuff would go as "nice to have" for my primarily preferred period of late cold war too to a degree at least. Also some earlier stuff like T-34/85 would multitask nicely between being a WW2, Korea, and even I think early Vietnam asset.

 

 

 

 

It won't be too hard to develop assets that overlap both eras. Let's face it the F-100 served until 1979. The Oriskany was retired in 1976 so we should have an Essex-class carrier and battle group

Edited April 17, 2023 by upyr1

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

First off, I am fairly strongly against any focus on any singular time frame.

As in, don't focus at all, even if temporarily? Or you're against DCS being entirely devoted to x singular timeframe?

Because I'm also against the latter, but as for the former - right now we have modules that span something like 70 years, but pick any one decade and you'll be hard pressed to find one that's comprehensively filled out. Some are definitely better than others, but you only need to compare something like SF2 to see the difference. IMO I think it might've been better to pick a timeframe (which timeframe it is doesn't really matter, so long as one that's achievable), get it comprehensively fleshed out (WWII in its current state probably being the minimum standard, though even that has a coherency issue) then move onto the next, instead of perhaps the more scatterbrained approach that we've had so far (e.g early Cold War modules, but a very small number of assets (none in some categories) and no maps).

[WinterH]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

As in, don't focus at all, even if temporarily? Or you're against DCS being entirely devoted to x singular timeframe?

More the latter, I am very much fine with fleshing out of existing "periods" of course, especially the 3 I've listed in my post make the greatest sense imo. But I'd like effort to be "let's put some serious effort into lots of Cold War units, but maybe also add 1-2 WWII units too meanwhile" kind of way so that, if possible none of the main periods become completely left in the dust.

 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

It won't be too hard to develop assets that overlap both eras. Let's face it the F-100 served until 1979. The Oriskany was retired in 1976 so we should have an Essex-class carrier and battle group

There are some yes, M42 Duster for example, would also be a rather important unit that spans a long period of use for many countries. And most of the towed guns, ATGM launchers etc were in service for a long period. Also a soldier with a LAW launcher would cover a long service history and would give BLUE side an infantry unit that can hurt vehicles.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As in, don't focus at all, even if temporarily? Or you're against DCS being entirely devoted to x singular timeframe?

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

More the latter, I am very much fine with fleshing out of existing "periods" of course, especially the 3 I've listed in my post make the greatest sense imo. But I'd like effort to be "let's put some serious effort into lots of Cold War units, but maybe also add 1-2 WWII units too meanwhile" kind of way so that, if possible none of the main periods become completely left in the dust.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't list World War II or the WOT because I feel the cold war is underdeveloped, especially in the early period. Having said If I were planning asset development war I would assign everything a 1, 2, 3,  4 or a 5  

1. Assets that served in the focused era and at least 1 other era with little to no change.
2.  Assets that served in multiple eras with noticeable differences could be easily built by editing existing models
3. assets that only served in the target era and will require a new model
4. assets that didn't serve in the focused era but an adjacent era that would work with a period module. 
5. assets that are separated by at least 1 era.