Amphibious warfare (wishlist)

[upyr1]

Here is my wish list I'd love to see in any order

• Amphibious warfare ships like TARAWA and Samuel Chase should be spawn points for amphibious ground units and  landing craft with limits on ground troops and vehicles 
• landing craft and ships need the ability to deliver troops and vehicles to the beach
• More landing craft (LCACS for modern for example)
• Artillery - improvement spotting aircraft and forward observers 
• More amphibious ships for all eras
• more ships

 

[Silver_Dragon]

The concept of landing is too broad to focus solely on ships; we lack any understanding of naval doctrine.

Some references:

• WW2 (I think this is where we should start, before looking at the modern landings, as there is a severe lack of literature on the subject).
  • Landing Operations on Hostile Waters:
    • https://ia802808.us.archive.org/30/items/landingoperation00unit/landingoperation00unit.pdf
  • Landing Operations Doctrine United States Navy, FTP-167
    • https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/l/landing-operations-doctrine-usn-ftp-167.html
  • Ship to Shore Movement FTP-211
    • https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/ship-to-shore-movement0.html
  • Others

About Ships:

• I dont recoment "spawn point", recommend some kind of functionality that allows landing craft to connect to landing transports/ships and for these to transfer the means within them realistically, i.e. through landing ladders/nets in the case of APA/AKA or within floodable dikes, so that the means enter them and can dock, and then deploy to the sea and be able to head to the beaches or ports.
• Not only should there be functionality to deploy troops, vehicles, and equipment from landing craft to beaches, but the entire animation of moving to the beach, docking, deploying, and returning to sea should be realistic.
• Regarding the current amphibious boat and ship resources, and what would be needed to "complete" landings. The units we would be missing would be (to develop / expand):

• About Artillery and artillery spotter, it requires an attached post, different from this one (including everything that has to do with naval fire support).
• The rest has been answered above.

Edited July 13 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

30 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The concept of landing is too broad to focus solely on ships; we lack any understanding of naval doctrine.

 

About 8 decades' worth of Naval doctrine, ships, and boats need to be added to DCS, and the first place to start is the mission editor with waypoint commands and assets. 

50 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

• I dont recoment "spawn point", recommend some kind of functionality that allows landing craft to connect to landing transports/ships and for these to transfer the means within them realistically, i.e. through landing ladders/nets in the case of APA/AKA or within floodable dikes, so that the means enter them and can dock, and then deploy to the sea and be able to head to the beaches or ports.
• Not only should there be functionality to deploy troops, vehicles, and equipment from landing craft to beaches, but the entire animation of moving to the beach, docking, deploying, and returning to sea should be realistic.

I just wrote spawn point to mean starting point.  The animation would be nice, however my main concern is to get the leathernecks to the beach.  I'd love to use the suply menu.  While on the subject of moving troops the "load on start" needs to be improved. 

 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Regarding the current amphibious boat and ship resources, and what would be needed to "complete" landings. The units we would be missing would be (to develop / expand):

My addition to that list 

Would be the Naval order of battle for Operation Overlord and the Mariana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Marianas_naval_order_of_battle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings

I get it will take a while to get everything but I'm buying the Pascific theater asset pack as soon as it comes out.

For the cold war we'd need the following at a minimum

1980s Iowa-class battleship refit (if we can get New Jersey's 1968 configuration I'm not going to object.)

Until things get clears up with Razbam, I'd like the Wasp and Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships. I considered the Tarawa to have been the sweet spot for the planned and current Naval modules (except the F4U) they were in service from 1976 to 2015.  

LCAC and the Red For Lebeds

Then Ivan Rogov 

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

• About Artillery and artillery spotter, it requires an attached post, different from this one (including everything that has to do with naval fire support).
•  

I think artillery is it's own thread. 

[Kang]

Having proper animations for the different stages of the event would certainly be amazing, but I think that is mostly artwork that can be tackled later on and slowly expanded to ever more types of ships. First of all the basic mechanics need to be established and implemented.

The fact that you can pay money for an asset pack that contains non-functioning Higgins boats is a bit deplorable in itself.

But then I can already hear the usual thing: we can't have further ships or major functions for ships implemented until the whole damage modeling for ships is redone (ETA 2076)...

[Silver_Dragon]

53 minutes ago, Kang said:

Having proper animations for the different stages of the event would certainly be amazing, but I think that is mostly artwork that can be tackled later on and slowly expanded to ever more types of ships. First of all the basic mechanics need to be established and implemented.

The fact that you can pay money for an asset pack that contains non-functioning Higgins boats is a bit deplorable in itself.

But then I can already hear the usual thing: we can't have further ships or major functions for ships implemented until the whole damage modeling for ships is redone (ETA 2076)...

That comment is out of place... the WW2 asset pack gives you vehicles, planes, ships, and more, but no one promised it would come with functionality A or B. Coming here now to cry about a landing craft, whether WW2 or Modern, being the fault of a paid support pack is simply making cheap excuses.

By that rule of thumb, we can blame RAZBAM for not implementing the same functionality for deploying landing craft on the Tarawa... when we know that the creator of a 3D model has nothing to do with the lack of specific functionality in the core.

If ED hasn't implemented something similar, it's because that functionality has taken time, which we know very well, and it's not a priority. But that's not the topic of this post, and coming up with this seems to be coming to ruin the discussion.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

About 8 decades' worth of Naval doctrine, ships, and boats need to be added to DCS, and the first place to start is the mission editor with waypoint commands and assets. 

You have to understand how they work and what procedures are carried out in this regard, putting a waypoint that magically starts vomiting forces out of control is crazy, it's the same as we've seen in some multiplayer servers, which distort the transport of troops in helicopters and suddenly a UH-1 carries you in the sling an M1 Abrams tank or a complete S300 by the magic of gameplay... Something that will surely start happening anyway when they start cheating, deploying the same entities by parachute when the C-130J arrives. There has to be a limit.

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I just wrote spawn point to mean starting point.  The animation would be nice, however my main concern is to get the leathernecks to the beach.  I'd love to use the suply menu.  While on the subject of moving troops the "load on start" needs to be improved. 

 

In that case, we'd have to have the same thing: an LS Samuel Chase, or an LST that has no cargo bay. The problem is that there's no transfer of material to an LCVP, or a Ropucha, or any other vessel (you can't actually configure any vessel's cargo). The only ones are those designated as replenishment points, which are also poorly configured:
- The aircraft carriers and the Tarawa should have cargo holds and ammo magazine, not all the logistics.
- There are freighters like the Hardy Wind and the MV Tilde (those could be correct), but from there, you have to create everything else, not do meaningless magic.
- All landing ships lack a logistics window, like the new CH-47 loading system, where you have a "hold" with so many tons of material, vehicles and troops and from there you can move the different means... it has already been done outside of DCS and it is something "realistic" if we go with the simple version.

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

 

My addition to that list 

Would be the Naval order of battle for Operation Overlord and the Mariana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Marianas_naval_order_of_battle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings

I get it will take a while to get everything but I'm buying the Pascific theater asset pack as soon as it comes out.

For the cold war we'd need the following at a minimum

1980s Iowa-class battleship refit (if we can get New Jersey's 1968 configuration I'm not going to object.)

Until things get clears up with Razbam, I'd like the Wasp and Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships. I considered the Tarawa to have been the sweet spot for the planned and current Naval modules (except the F4U) they were in service from 1976 to 2015.  

LCAC and the Red For Lebeds

Then Ivan Rogov 

That list can be expanded as much as you want; remember, I already have a post with literally "everything" missing from DCS World. In fact, I shouldn't be posting the same thing twice, knowing that the work has already been done elsewhere.

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I think artillery is it's own thread. 

Yes, that is correct.

[Kang]

51 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That comment is out of place... the WW2 asset pack gives you vehicles, planes, ships, and more, but no one promised it would come with functionality A or B. Coming here now to cry about a landing craft, whether WW2 or Modern, being the fault of a paid support pack is simply making cheap excuses.

By that rule of thumb, we can blame RAZBAM for not implementing the same functionality for deploying landing craft on the Tarawa... when we know that the creator of a 3D model has nothing to do with the lack of specific functionality in the core.

If ED hasn't implemented something similar, it's because that functionality has taken time, which we know very well, and it's not a priority. But that's not the topic of this post, and coming up with this seems to be coming to ruin the discussion.

I take some offence to that stance, but I'll agree that the WW2 asset pack certainly contains other things that are decidedly more useful. Personally I would have expected the boats to have the option to reach beaches and drop ramps, though, even if there was no further disembarkation happening after.

[Silver_Dragon]

That is already explained in another post.

 

[Kang]

The fact that you mentioned this in another thread does not really make it any less disappointing. But lets get a bit back onto topic:

I agree that it would be a little nasty to have a 'magic' landing capacity that does whatever, but seeing how this is not an actively controlled module and quite certainly part of the mission design, I would relegate that to the mission designers for a first phase.

This leaves two wishes for me: 1.) a system that actually allows for ships/boats landing/beaching/docking in some reasonable albeit simplified way and 2.) adding more assets, both in these vehicles and related beachhead materials.

The former is a task that should be worthwhile, despite being on the trickier side of things, and will likely take some time. The latter, while not trivial, should not be a huge problem.

[upyr1]

1 minute ago, Kang said:

Having proper animations for the different stages of the event would certainly be amazing, but I think that is mostly artwork that can be tackled later on and slowly expanded to ever more types of ships. First of all the basic mechanics need to be established and implemented.

The fact that you can pay money for an asset pack that contains non-functioning Higgins boats is a bit deplorable in itself.

But then I can already hear the usual thing: we can't have further ships or major functions for ships implemented until the whole damage modeling for ships is redone (ETA 2076)...

Proper animations are low on my list, though I'm not saying no. 

[Silver_Dragon]

31 minutes ago, Kang said:

The fact that you mentioned this in another thread does not really make it any less disappointing. But lets get a bit back onto topic:

I agree that it would be a little nasty to have a 'magic' landing capacity that does whatever, but seeing how this is not an actively controlled module and quite certainly part of the mission design, I would relegate that to the mission designers for a first phase.

This leaves two wishes for me: 1.) a system that actually allows for ships/boats landing/beaching/docking in some reasonable albeit simplified way and 2.) adding more assets, both in these vehicles and related beachhead materials.

The former is a task that should be worthwhile, despite being on the trickier side of things, and will likely take some time. The latter, while not trivial, should not be a huge problem.

I'm posting the list of questions about why the system isn't working in another post. It could be discussed and expanded upon, since it's a bug in itself.
As for the second point, there's still plenty of room for expansion... although taking the "easy" route would be copying others.

[upyr1]

36 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You have to understand how they work and what procedures are carried out in this regard, putting a waypoint that magically starts vomiting forces out of control is crazy,

 

True there has to be some logic. I'm thinking with amphibious ships, the best approach to use would be a supply menu like we currently have on airbases and carriers. The ship type would limit what could be carried. For example on a ship with a flight deck and no well deck (LPH or CV) or way to launch Higgins boats, you would be limited to helicopters and tilt rottors transporting infantry and maybe light vehicles (Jeeps/hummers). Ships with divates would have their own rules on what they can launch and a ship with well decks woull have their rules.  That's just part of good design

 

36 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

it's the same as we've seen in some multiplayer servers, which distort the transport of troops in helicopters and suddenly a UH-1 carries you in the sling an M1 Abrams tank or a complete S300 by the magic of gameplay... Something that will surely start happening anyway when they start cheating, deploying the same entities by parachute when the C-130J arrives. There has to be a limit.

This needs to be fixed and I have always supported using the payload menu for cargo and troop loading, as I think it would be an easier way to preload things as it would be easier to see the weight and size.

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That list can be expanded as much as you want; remember, I already have a post with literally "everything" missing from DCS World. In fact, I shouldn't be posting the same thing twice, knowing that the work has already been done elsewhere.

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

True but and something are long over due 

 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Yes, that is correct.

I'll start are bump that 

 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

By that rule of thumb, we can blame RAZBAM for not implementing the same functionality for deploying landing craft on the Tarawa... when we know that the creator of a 3D model has nothing to do with the lack of specific functionality in the core.

 

This is one the reasons I'm not happy with Razbam though if they return to DCS their MiG-23 is an insta buy. 

[Silver_Dragon]

12 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'll start are bump that 

 

I think there was already a post about this somewhere on the forum. Let's take a look.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Kang said:

I agree that it would be a little nasty to have a 'magic' landing capacity that does whatever, but seeing how this is not an actively controlled module and quite certainly part of the mission design, I would relegate that to the mission designers for a first phase.

 

I think the best approach would be to give landing craft and amphibious vehicles a launch waypoint that would act like the takeoff waypoint except connect you to a landing ship. Then as stated earlier, tie in the supply menu.