no bias less bias ?

[sinzov]

Wish for less bias and a more balanced game.
Two things first: an apology if this forum is the wrong place, and second - my topic has probably been passionately discussed a thousand times.
i've only been playing dcs for a year, i like to set up different scenarios and then watch how the AI runs the game.  To my surprise, the results are usually very one-sided - overwhelming victories for the western side. regardless of whether the battles take place in the air, on the ground or at sea.
to give same examples:

• a2a: Western fighters like the French F1 prevail not only over Mig-21, but also Mig-23 and even keep up with the Mig-29
• g2g: russian tanks are almost always defeated by their western contemporairies
• sea: an American supercarrier repels all the missiles coming from the Kirov-cruiser almost every time with it's CIWS

believe me, i built the test scenarios very carefully and played them with various alternatives and on several maps (caucasus, syria, sinai).
is my impression of a deep bias wrong ?
this way dcs is no fun, and i will loose interest in an otherwise superb product.

[Silver_Dragon]

DCS World has none balance. The modules builded by ED and 3rd parties has build with open sources and available acurated info. Has no a problem with western systems has more technologic with a easter system. Meanwhile, coming others modules to fill gaps but otherwise, that is not a "balanced game".

[Mr_sukebe]

As already stated, DCS is not about balance, which is the remit of arcade games.  DCS is about accuracy to whatever is currently possible.

If it happens that this results in an imbalance, then that's just tough.

That's not any different to most historical wars, e.g. either of the Gulf Wars, Vietnam etc.  Within say WW2 we had great examples within the Pacific theatre. At the start the Zero was easily the best aircraft as it was as fast as it's enemies and could also outmanoeuvre them.  By 44', the Zero didn't really improve much.  Whilst the Hellcat and Corsair couldn't outmanoeuvre a Zero, they were significantly faster, and with the use of appropriate tactics, ie. boom and zoom, ripped them to pieces.   I don't believe that the Zero was ever really on "equal" terms with any aircraft that it faced.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gunfreak]

I mean last time Russia/soviet Union made a plane that was the equal to western planes was the MiG15.

They've been lagging behind ever since. MiG21 might also be said to be equal to the western Gen 2 planes. But for almost all its existence, its been fighting gen 3, and 4 and might even end up fighting gen 5 at one point.

 

Current events have shown Russian based armor isn't really that good.

If anything Russian ships and SAMs are probably to effective vs real life given their terrible preformance we've seen.

[sinzov]

Sure, dcs is not about an artificial "balance" a la arcade, and this is not what i meant or what i want. dcs seems to be biased in favour of western stuff.  i think it is a lack of realism and accuracy when a French F1, which is a third generation aircraft at best is tackling with a Fulcrum on equal terms or a CIWS is able to shoot up a volley of P-700 Granit.

as for a technical inferiority of eastern products - i do not buy this argument. they were the first to use AESA-radar, FBW-systems etc., their airframes were certainly among the best, from Mig-21 to Su-35, and in Vietnam the US-Forces had to improve their electronic warfare capabilities drastically, both in quality and quantity. It is not without reason either that the US ever since tries to get their hands on Soviet / Russian stuff and maintains a very extensive and expensive training program to counter the threads.

i guess we all know from experience that a discussion like this tends to go on and on ... ;-), but arguments deepen the understanding.

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, sinzov said:

g2g: russian tanks are almost always defeated by their western contemporairies

In real life when these forces met the result was the loss of 160 Russian-made tanks and 180 APCs vs the loss of one Bradley. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

Edited August 19, 2023 by SharpeXB

[upyr1]

The closest thing to balance in DCS you will ever see is having contemporary assets and good mission design. NATO equipment was more technologically advanced than Warsaw Pact equipment. That is still the case with Western and Russian and Chinese equipment. Some of this was due to design philosophy, I won't get into the debate as to how much.  The West especially after nations started to end conscription tended to favor more expensive high-tech systems while the East tended to favor low-tech systems that would be cheaper to build in bulk.

I would love to see ED add modern Red Force aircraft, but as ED's goal is to make things as realistic as possible without getting visited by men in black suits,  the only possible way we might see them officially would be as AI assets. I'd have no problems with that. So that leaves us with mods or being creative with mission design.

When building missions whether it is single-player, player vs player, or co-op it is up to you the builder to determine how to achieve the right balance. That's not to say there is nothing that ED needs to improve that would as a side effect improve balance without sacrificing realism. This is one of the reasons I am way more excited about older planes than I am about modern ones. The F-4 vs MiG-21 will be a better match-up than the MiG-21 vs Mirage F1 or F-14 (if the engine holds up).  

Focusing on what we have, balance is achievable through mission design. Have the Red For outnumber the blue, and have a good air defense network. Having said that there are things ED could do to improve things that wouldn't sacrifice realism.

Some ideas to improve the ground game would be the following.

First add minefields, trenches, and other defensive positions this would make troops harder to hit and a tougher battle than troops out in the open.

Next would be better artillery AI, the main problem here is that we are limited to barrage fire as we don't have forward observers. I would love to have AI FAC/FOs either ground or air-based call-in artillery and air strikes instead of relying strickly on pre-programmed strikes

Then there needs to be more unit types in general.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In real life when these forces met the result was the loss of 160 Russian-made tanks and 180 APCs vs the loss of one Bradley. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

 

Training was a big issue here, if we were to build a realistic Desert Storm campaign the US would be set to Ace while the Iraqis would be set to trained. 

[Aquorys]

6 minutes ago, sinzov said:

as for a technical inferiority of eastern products - i do not buy this argument.

In somewhat recent conflicts, let's say 1990+, western technology has outperformed eastern bloc technology pretty consistently.

11 minutes ago, sinzov said:

they were the first to use AESA-radar, FBW-systems etc.

The pioneer of AESA technology was Japan, being the first nation to introduce it on ships and fighter aircraft.

The first analog FBW production aircraft was the Concorde (France), the first digital FBW production aircraft was the F-16 (USA). The pioneer of large scale civilian use of modern digital FBW system was EADS (aka Airbus, multinational western-european).

17 minutes ago, sinzov said:

their airframes were certainly among the best, from Mig-21 to Su-35

The aerodynamic design was indeed very good, but that is reflected quite accurately in DCS.

18 minutes ago, sinzov said:

It is not without reason either that the US ever since tries to get their hands on Soviet / Russian stuff and maintains a very extensive and expensive training program to counter the threads.

Of course it's not without reason, but the reason is not eastern bloc technological superiority. Even if you have superior technology, acquiring opposing force technology and material can widen the gap even more, as it lets you figure out the most effective counter-technologies and counter-tactics to employ.

It is not because of technology alone that the western forces typically perform very well, it is also the result of a "know your enemy" attitude in training and tactics development.

[upyr1]

20 minutes ago, sinzov said:

as for a technical inferiority of eastern products - i do not buy this argument. they were the first to use AESA-radar, FBW-systems etc., their airframes were certainly among the best, from Mig-21 to Su-35, and in Vietnam the US-Forces had to improve their electronic warfare capabilities drastically, both in quality and quantity. It is not without reason either that the US ever since tries to get their hands on Soviet / Russian stuff and maintains a very extensive and expensive training program to counter the threads.

 

There are two things to remember, first just becuse a technology is available doesn't mean that it will be used. An example of this would be World War II ship construction. Ships that were designed pre-war were known as gold platers becuse the shipyards and designers cut corners to bring down construction time. The other problem we face is the fact the RedFor we have is rather dated.  The aircraft we have are basically early 1990s ventage.  I don't know if we could get AI Su-35 or MiG-35s I know there is no way we're getting them flyable. I would love that.

Then bringing up the Vietnam War, it is important to remember that during the course of the Rolling Thunder Campaign the North Vietnamese built up a thick air defense network.  At their strongest they had over 200 sam batteries the AAA was thick- here is a map of the AA guns in hanoi

 

the icon is a battery five to seven guns at each location. Brown colored gun symbols are 105mm, blue are 85mm, red are 57/37mm and yellow are automatic weapons (I'm guessing 23MM) and the source said the map didn't display all the small caliber guns. Then there is the issue of ED's AI and the fact I don't think it really models an integrated air defense system. During the Vietnam war the North Vietnamese would co-ordinate their fighters so that avoiding sams meant you were going to get jumped by a MiG then the North Vietnamese air force did  a great job avoiding detection until it came time to engage. DCS's AI is really focused on individual units and not an army or air force 

[SharpeXB]

If DCS was capable of simulating a modern fully authentic Red vs Blue scenario, it would end up basically being like the Gulf War, and we all know how that went down. The Blue Team would get flyable F-117s that would obliterate all the Red Team SAMs and command systems, then Blue air would dominate the whole battle. Nobody would want to play the Red Team.

[Gunfreak]

That Vietnam map us an excellent example of how Russian/ all ground units are overpowered. In Vietnam American planes actually flew there. In that area densely populated by SAM and AAA. Some did indeed get shot down. In in DCS if you had populated a map with that many SAMs. Not a single AI or player plane would survive. Missiles and AAA in DCS are just too effective. 

[Mad_Shell]

59 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

That Vietnam map us an excellent example of how Russian/ all ground units are overpowered. In Vietnam American planes actually flew there. In that area densely populated by SAM and AAA. Some did indeed get shot down. In in DCS if you had populated a map with that many SAMs. Not a single AI or player plane would survive. Missiles and AAA in DCS are just too effective. 

It's impossible to tell if SAMs and AAA are too effective in DCS just based on planes survival rates. People who complain that AA is too effective in DCS, do you guys prepare your missions as thoroughly as pilots do IRL? Do you have several hours of mission brief, plan your flightpath down to the smallest detail, use advanced multi-ships tactics, plan for almost every single scenario that could happen and know by heart how everyone should react in any case, don't take more risks than needed like if your life depends on it?

 

[Atazar SPN]

A year ago I developed a mission in which several convoys headed by eight Russian T-90s had to simultaneously assault the entire territory of Georgia with very good results. I did it thinking that without the intervention of the pilots in the multiplayer mode it would be impossible to repel the attack. Mission attached. Run the mission and watch the progress and development, it's fun. In any case, in wars there are no balances. There is always one coalition/country more powerful than the rest. Use this mission as a template if you want to add human components to both sides.

Defensa Georgia.miz

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Mad_Shell said:

It's impossible to tell if SAMs and AAA are too effective in DCS just based on planes survival rates. People who complain that AA is too effective in DCS, do you guys prepare your missions as thoroughly as pilots do IRL? Do you have several hours of mission brief, plan your flightpath down to the smallest detail, use advanced multi-ships tactics, plan for almost every single scenario that could happen and know by heart how everyone should react in any case, don't take more risks than needed like if your life depends on it?

Out of the two,  I would expect AAA would be easier to gauge depending on the system. Some systems are computer aimed some are human aimed and in either case there are two questions, what is a baseline CEP and what is the CEP we see in DCS? 

[Exorcet]

10 hours ago, sinzov said:

• a2a: Western fighters like the French F1 prevail not only over Mig-21, but also Mig-23 and even keep up with the Mig-29
• g2g: russian tanks are almost always defeated by their western contemporairies
• sea: an American supercarrier repels all the missiles coming from the Kirov-cruiser almost every time with it's CIWS

 

I'm interested in seeing these test actually. US carriers are anything but unsinkable. CIWS is usually overwhelmed if missiles get past AEGIS. On land, Russian tanks usually outrange NATO ones with missiles. I haven't tested the F1 specifically very much as an AI unit, but the MiG-21 is inferior in BVR, the MiG-23 is a rival but needs updated missile modeling, they are quite old in DCS, and the MiG-29 should be superior. I think there might have been an issue with AI settings here.

 

In any case, DCS is balanced. You need to craft a situation where both sides are equal instead of hoping that each side is equally good. There are also tools to push things in certain directions like AI skill level, AI invulnerability, and AI invisibility.

[NineLine]

11 hours ago, sinzov said:

Wish for less bias and a more balanced game.
Two things first: an apology if this forum is the wrong place, and second - my topic has probably been passionately discussed a thousand times.
i've only been playing dcs for a year, i like to set up different scenarios and then watch how the AI runs the game.  To my surprise, the results are usually very one-sided - overwhelming victories for the western side. regardless of whether the battles take place in the air, on the ground or at sea.
to give same examples:

• a2a: Western fighters like the French F1 prevail not only over Mig-21, but also Mig-23 and even keep up with the Mig-29
• g2g: russian tanks are almost always defeated by their western contemporairies
• sea: an American supercarrier repels all the missiles coming from the Kirov-cruiser almost every time with it's CIWS

believe me, i built the test scenarios very carefully and played them with various alternatives and on several maps (caucasus, syria, sinai).
is my impression of a deep bias wrong ?
this way dcs is no fun, and i will loose interest in an otherwise superb product.

Hey, welcome to the forums!

I have moved this topic to chit chat, I am fine with the discussion but it really isn't a wishlist item. Why? There is no bias in DCS World. There is no balance either... let's go over some of your points. 

Quote

a2a: Western fighters like the French F1 prevail not only over Mig-21, but also Mig-23 and even keep up with the Mig-29

This is the nature of air combat simulation, heck it's the nature of air combat period. A good pilot in an ok plane could beat an ok pilot in a good plane. It depends on the situation and scenario. Even the best pilot can make a mistake that could be fatal to him, even with the best equipment.  Now the F1 is very new to DCS and in early access, could some aspect be not 100% right right now? Sure but a blanket statement of plane A can beat plane B every time no question would be biased. 

Quote

g2g: russian tanks are almost always defeated by their western contemporairies

Hmmm, can I borrow your Western crews? Many times I have a different experience, but again this can go both ways and if you are seeing a consistent situation then you need to report a bug. The scenario and situation play a big part here as well, and the ground game in some cases is a lower fidelity, especially with damage modelling and the like. To call it a bias is wrong.

Quote

sea: an American supercarrier repels all the missiles coming from the Kirov-cruiser almost every time with it's CIWS

Almost every time? So you are saying there is a chance? <insert meme> If I were building a carrier I would test and install defenses that stop incoming missiles almost every time as well. Analyze your attack, when are you successful, when are you not? Saturate the carrier's defences or try something new and different to attack. The US has many years of carrier warfare under its belt as well as other such experiences. It's not biased when the Carrier needs to be called Super.

DCS is built with the intention of simulating each and every aircraft we add to the best of our abilities, legal and unclassified documentation and desire and passion to make the most realistic experience possible. At times this means countries that are more closed off or hard to get info on suffer a little more, they have older equipment it's not as impressive to other countries that we can get more info on. This is not a bias, this is just facts of the world we live in. 

Nothing you have described raises any red flags to me.

Quote

this way dcs is no fun, and i will loose interest in an otherwise superb product.

We included a very powerful Mission Editor, you can put limitations on certain forces and allow more chances for success. You can also spend more time, look at what doesn't work and finding ways to make it work, either in the Mission Editor or types and styles of attacks. 

I hope you do not give up, but there is no bias or balance here, we make everything as real as possible and then how the cards are played is up to you.

Thanks. 

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, sinzov said:

• sea: an American supercarrier repels all the missiles coming from the Kirov-cruiser almost every time with it's CIWS

 

You should build a mission where you attack a Kirov with bombers and try different formations. I've seen a flight of B-52s have all but 3 of their antiship missiles get shot down by a Kirov-class battlecruiser the same formation sank an American carrier. I've also seen a Tu-22M sink a carrier and I have also seen their missile get shot down, the difference was the formation. When flying a line astern the ship's defenses had enough time to react while they killed the carrier flying line abreast. The problem with the Kirov vs a carrier is it only carries 20 missiles which are fired off in volleys of 4 or 5 missiles combine the Kirov with land-based bombers and other ships 

[Dragon1-1]

Note that it's less about superior or inferior technology, that could go both ways (notably, Soviets decided not to copy the Sparrow because their own missiles were so much better), but about how both sides designed their hardware to be used. In a 1:1 duel with a Western tank, a Soviet equivalent will lose, that's true. This is because Soviet tanks were designed to win campaigns, not battles. They were to break through the enemy lines and attack lightly armored supply lines, trucks and APCs. On that account, they excelled, with much lighter weight than Western tanks, long range tube-launched ATGMs and excellent mobility. The job of knocking out Western tanks belonged to attack helos such as the Hind. Soviet fighters were designed mostly as defensive assets under GCI control, able to lie in the grass and wait for the US strikers to pass, at which point they'd emerge and raise hell. Ask any 'Nam-era Phantom or Thud jock what they thought about them, and "inferior" is one thing you won't hear. Even the much-maligned MiG-23 was amazing at one thing: get in, launch missiles, GTFO. Which, as it happened, was the idea behind it. Likewise with naval ships. Soviet vessels were made as heavy missile carriers, you'd get a bunch of them in a group and launch everything at once at the US carrier group in hopes you'll get a few missiles past the defenses. The Soviet fleet, just like their air force, was first and foremost a defensive asset to keep USN at bay, when Soviets attacked they did it with massed armor and IFVs, and their strategy in a larger war was to bleed the enemy dry on their defenses, then launch a counteroffensive to march on to victory (every heard the adage that generals always plan for the last war? True enough here).

In DCS, all this translates to a 1:1 inferiority of most Eastern units to Western counterparts, even when they're from the same era, which they often aren't. It's made worse for aircraft by the fact most of our Western modules are from mid-2000s, when Russia was ways behind in aircraft tech. The best aircraft they made in that period were actually all sold to India. Cold War era duels work out pretty well, and we keep getting more and more aircraft from that era. MiG-17 in particular is going to be a terrifying opponent for anything that doesn't have missiles.

[Aquorys]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The best aircraft they made in that period were actually all sold to India.

...where the pilots did some quite amazing things with them, including developing some innovative tactics. They had some surprises prepared for the USAF & USN guys who trained with them.

[Atazar SPN]

hace 14 horas, Atazar SPN dijo:

A year ago I developed a mission in which several convoys headed by eight Russian T-90s had to simultaneously assault the entire territory of Georgia with very good results. I did it thinking that without the intervention of the pilots in the multiplayer mode it would be impossible to repel the attack. Mission attached. Run the mission and watch the progress and development, it's fun. In any case, in wars there are no balances. There is always one coalition/country more powerful than the rest. Use this mission as a template if you want to add human components to both sides.

Defensa Georgia.miz 216.74 kB · 4 descargas

If you follow this mission to the end, you will see that after the assault there are few surviving units from the NATO side. When the ground armored vehicles annihilate all the antiaircraft defenses, Russian bombers with their escorts begin to take off. The Su-34 bombers aren't doing their job because I haven't configured them correctly, but I'm planning to correct that and add cargo planes that land in the occupied territory to reinforce it with more anti-air defense systems and resupply the armor that captured Georgia.

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

We included a very powerful Mission Editor, you can put limitations on certain forces and allow more chances for success. You can also spend more time, look at what doesn't work and finding ways to make it work, either in the Mission Editor or types and styles of attacks. 

Playing with the mission editor can be fun

[Atazar SPN]

Fixed an editing error where Su-34s would refuse to engage their targets. Now everything works better and the template is more stable. You can download here:

***Finally edited and shared on the official Eagle Dynamics website. Now, when the T-90s have assaulted the Georgian bases, cargo planes are activated that will land on them to establish SAM emplacements. (We didn't want SA-11 to appear out of nowhere)***

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332685/

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Atazar SPN