Europe Wishlist Thread

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh, why do we need a Germany map then? After all if you want huge-ish swathes of green, just load up the Cacausus or Normandy?

Except no? Germany has cities (bigger than either of those maps, in fact), highways, landmarks, all that stuff. Water is water no matter where it is in the world.

Of all the bad arguments you've made, this is probably the silliest one. Even the endless parade of maps set in the sandbox has something to set them apart. In the GIUK gap, you'll take off from the boat, do your mission feet wet, and get back to the boat. That's pretty much the scenario for it, US CVBG vs. Soviet surface combat battlegroup. Very nice for ship and especially sub sims, but for aircraft, way down the list.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The same logic applies to just about every theatre in DCS.

Only to ones that are almost 100% water.

Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to ahistorical aircraft, I was referring to most modules and AI aircraft, particularly Soviet ones, that we have being physically unable to operate from a carrier or do AAR. This means they wouldn't get very far in, especially without a friendly airbase in the area.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Luckily the GIUK has 4 major airbases for them then - unlike the Marianas which only has one.

You might not have noticed how many miles separate those airbases. GIUK gap is huge. Distance from Falklands to mainland is about 600km. That's the largest DCS map currently available, and it already exceeds combat radius of most of our aircraft. From Iceland to UK? 1000km of nothing but sea. If you take a detour you can glimpse Faroe islands, not that there's a lot to see in there. If you want to fly for three hours with multiple AARs just to see something other than water, well, you can set it up on the South Atlantic map.

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map. Also, GIUK gap is big enough that it'll be even worse than South Atlantic with regards to being just plain inaccurate. Geography of the SA map is skewed because the map is flat and the Earth is not, contrary to what some people believe. It's not too obvious because of all the water, but this is something you really want a spherical Earth for. Just like with Vietnam, you're thinking too big for this stage of sim development.

Edited March 22 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except no? Germany has cities (bigger than either of those maps, in fact), highways, landmarks, all that stuff.

Oh, when did London, Paris, Calais, Amiems, Tblisi, Sochi, Krasnodar, blah blah blah, lose their city status?

No highways or landmarks either? Sure about that?

Are you going to tell me there are no forests, bridges or railways next?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Of all the bad arguments you've made, this is probably the silliest one.

Uh huh.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even the endless parade of maps set in the sandbox has something to set them apart.

"There's nothing to set apart the GIUK gap compared to the Marianas or South Atlantic" but sure, I'm the one putting forward bad and silly arguments...

Because large NATO airbases (plural) in one of the most relevant areas for the Cold War apparently isn't a difference?

The only aerodromes on the Falkland Islands suitable for our aircraft are practically right next to each other - at least with Iceland I could stage blue out of Keflavik and red out of Egilsstaðir and/or Akureyri (ironically, something the light-sim I hinted at also did) and the distances are similar as could be expected on Germany. 

This way I'd even have more scope for ground combat between them, something that's straight up impossible on the Marianas, unless the ground combat is all concentrated on Rota or something and pretty dubious between Argentina and I guess, East Falkland - I'd argue that Iceland is the more plausible scenario - it's in the right place for a start - not sure what the Soviets are doing in Argentina/Falklands, not exactly sure it's a location with any overarching strategic benefit for them, unlike Iceland or the rest of the GIUK gap, ditto for the Marianas.

Going further into the realms of fiction though, I could also set up a scenario between the Faroes, the Shetland Islands or the Outer Hebrides - fairly appropriate distances (similar to what can be expected on the Germany map) and as a bonus, the latter 2 are far more suitable for ground combat than the Marianas. I've got options for long duration missions between islands and short ones, unlike the South Atlantic (unless I'm bombing Isla de los Estados with its 0 inhabited areas, let alone military installations, for some reason). I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever basing Soviet aircraft.

I don't think the GIUK gap is as limited as your trying to make out.

 

But hey what about generally? Falklands is fairly similar-ish to Iceland (though less suitable airports), but the season is completely backwards and the main land mass is in the wrong direction.

As for the Marianas, the islands are tiny (seriously, Guam is a little under twice the size of Rota, Tinian and Saipan combined and yet, Guam is barely a third of the Faroes) and the biome is completely wrong (not exactly a lot of tropical forest on Iceland) and I'm not exactly sure what NATO vs Warsaw Pact, Cold War gone hot scenario makes more sense on the Marianas or South Atlantic, than it does in the GIUK gap.

So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In the GIUK gap, you'll take off from the boat, do your mission feet wet, and get back to the boat.

Why, exactly?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You might not have noticed how many miles separate those airbases.

Have you?

Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If you want to fly for three hours with multiple AARs just to see something other than water, well, you can set it up on the South Atlantic map.

I can also set up every other kind of mission on just about every other map - this is such a nonsense argument to anyone who actually cares about where their missions are actually set.

Which is why I want Germany, even if I can bomb a Soviet advance on the Caucasus and why I want the GIUK gap, even if I can do blue water (albeit with a completely fictional order of battle) on the SA map.

If it were the case that there's no point developing any other theatres if the ones you have already support the same kind of general mission, I doubt we would've moved past the Caucasus.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map.

And?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map. Also, GIUK gap is big enough that it'll be even worse than South Atlantic with regards to being just plain inaccurate. Geography of the SA map is skewed because the map is flat and the Earth is not, contrary to what some people believe. It's not too obvious because of all the water, but this is something you really want a spherical Earth for.

Finally something in this post I agree with, but this goes for all maps, just large ones (and large ones with lots of land) suffer more so. At least GIUK mostly consists of islands where changes due to a spherical Earth are less noticeable, apart from really their orientation.

Edited March 22 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness.

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine. What I am proposing is to set your mission far enough away from any land that biomes of whatever else is there but water are not going to be possible to get to. Because that's what you'll be flying in the GIUK gap. Naval aviation vs. enemy ships. You won't even get to glimpse any land during a typical scenario. You can easily set such a mission on the South Atlantic map, plenty of water in all directions.

Ground combat is another matter, but honestly, in most Cold War scenarios, everything would hinge on ships, anyway. Even if you could contrive a ground scenario not dominated by naval fire support, this is not a compelling enough argument to make that instead of several other more interesting locations. Tom Clancy naval scenarios that everyone seems to want from that map are doable on the South Atlantic.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft.

Should have said you want a Scotland map. I could even get behind that, been sailing across the Irish Sea last year. That's not exactly a "GIUK gap" map, though, seeing as it won't even include Iceland, because it's over 1000km away. Or, you could have Iceland, though there's barely enough land for an air conflict within its bounds. Maybe, with enough time, someone would make both. 

You seem to want the whole 1600km long gap in DCS, as a single map. This is not happening. Measure the distance yourself on Google maps, and notice the shape of the line. That rather pronounced curve is called an orthodrome, and this is how you know you would never be able to realistically navigate on a map that size without an actual, spherical map. It's not just about some islands being at the wrong angle, it's about the fundamental difference between navigating on a sphere and on a flat plane. Not to mention, the existence of horizon is kind of important at those distances. Those issues are already bad enough on the SA map.

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine.

And you know this how when it's only water? Afghanistan expanded down south, though I don't remember the distance. The textures were kept at lowrez. The "size" obviously didn't matter. 

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine.

Are you sure about that, because the Caucasus map is over 900 nautical miles across, over 1000 going corner to corner. The Marianas map is over 1100 nmi across, corner to corner and is 700 nmi N-S and >850 nmi E-W. conveniently roughly the same dimensions as a GIUK gap map.

So just what are the limits of the DCS engine exactly?

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What I am proposing is to set your mission far enough away from any land that biomes of whatever else is there but water are not going to be possible to get to. Because that's what you'll be flying in the GIUK gap. Naval aviation vs. enemy ships.

Again, I've no idea why you think this is the only possible scenario.

Is it the primary one I'm most interested, yes (well, if we had a Buccaneer - the only fighter-sized maritime strike platform based in the region for the timeframe). Is it the only one possible? No. Is it the only one realistic? Also no - the 57th FIS is hardly optimised for maritime strike, nor is No. 43 or 111 RAF.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even if you could contrive a ground scenario not dominated by naval fire support, this is not a compelling enough argument to make that instead of several other more interesting locations. Tom Clancy naval scenarios that everyone seems to want from that map are doable on the South Atlantic.

Even if I could? You only have to have your ground scenario barely past 20 nmi away from the coast - naval artillery present on most surface combatants has a range inside of 15 nmi and even the 16" Mark 7 guns on the Iowas maxes out barely past 20 nmi. The B-38 on the Sverdlov again, tops out at 15 nmi.

For comparison, even if I parked a warship next to Seyðisfjörður (the town the fjord borders), it's already over 10 nmi to the airport at Egilsstaðir - there is tonnes of area for ground combat that's out of reach of even the largest of relevant naval artillery. It's hardly a contrivance.

As for several other more interesting locations, if we're talking about the Cold War gone hot, what locations would those be exactly? We've already got Kola and are getting Germany, so that's the 2 primary flashpoints between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. What else? I guess the Baltic and the Med, though they'd also have to be gigantic (especially the latter) and include way more land area (developed land at that) to include all the major players (even ignoring Finland and Leningrad/St Petersburg). Perhaps Cuba - I'd be down for that, but then just Cuba itself is 600 nmi across - the distance from Keflavik to Stornaway. Maybe Bering strait? Though to include any major military airbases it would probably be just as large as the GIUK gap, certainly all the issues you describe for the GIUK gap would apply there.

And as for "just use another map" we go back to my point you described as bad and silly, because if you don't care where your mission actually is, every scenario (contrived or otherwise) is doable from just about every map, with only really a few exceptions (NTTR and Afghanistan obviously isn't suitable for naval, Marianas isn't really suitable for land warfare). Everything is possible from Syria or PG...

If what your saying held weight, there would be little reason for any other map past the Caucasus.

I mean, you're talking about contrived scenarios (as if merely being 20 nmi inland, which is all that would need to happen to be out of range of naval artillery, is a contrivance), but a Cold War gone hot scenario in the South Atlantic, 4000 nmi away (at best) from any relevant NATO vs Warsaw Pact flashpoint is fine? And even that is a Cuba scenario, the figure changes to 6000 nmi if we're talking principal battle areas in a Cold War gone hot scenario and 7000 nmi away from where it should be.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Should have said you want a Scotland map. I could even get behind that, been sailing across the Irish Sea last year. That's not exactly a "GIUK gap" map, though, seeing as it won't even include Iceland, because it's over 1000km away.

Why wouldn't it include Iceland? DCS maps are already pushing past 2000 km across diagonals.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Or, you could have Iceland, though there's barely enough land for an air conflict within its bounds.

What?

The distance between Keflavik and Egilsstaðir is about 225 nmi. 

To put that into perspective, Iceland isn't far off the entire area of the North German Plain - the distance between Gütersloh and Damgarten is around 200 nmi.

The Falkland Islands are only 140 nmi across and the main air battle area was concentrated in Falkland Sound and East Falkland. Even being generous, this area is only around 20,000 km², by comparison Iceland is 5 times larger. But you're telling me that that's barely enough land for an air conflict?

How about Frankfurt to Berlin? 230 nmi - which covers all the main battle areas for the Fulda Gap/CENTAG area, same for Ramstein to Magdeburg. Laarbuch to Liepzig? Same distance.

What about Senaki to Krymsk? About 240 nmi, barely enough land for air conflict between them? 

I can go on and on. 

Suffice to say we have plenty of maps where likely (let alone realistic) battle areas span similar extents. And we're talking about Cold War gone hot - we're not exactly having AIM-174Bs face off against PL-17s now.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Measure the distance yourself on Google maps, and notice the shape of the line. That rather pronounced curve is called an orthodrome, and this is how you know you would never be able to realistically navigate on a map that size without an actual, spherical map. It's not just about some islands being at the wrong angle, it's about the fundamental difference between navigating on a sphere and on a flat plane.

I think realistic navigation on a game with only flat Earth maps with DCS as it is is neither here nor there - even things as simple as true north are misaligned on every map (they only get around this by rotating landmasses). This a problem with every single map in the game, it's just most exacerbated by larger maps and maps closer to the poles.

But aircraft like the Phantom IRL start computing for great circles past 100 nmi, something that would achieve the opposite of the desired result on a flat map (needlessly extending the track).

Edited March 23 by Northstar98

[Manreisen]

Balkan map , it's a dream of mine

[Mike Force Team]

Can we have a map for the Red Sea and Yemen? We can create many missions for this sandbox.

Mike Force Team 

[SOLIDKREATE]

I fully support this. We could kill the whole one F-5 the Houthi's have . On a serious note it would be pretty cool to have.

[Dragon1-1]

I'll certainly be up for some Operation Allied Force scenarios, especially with the upcoming MiG-29A. Not to mention, the region was a mess since Yugoslavia collapsed and had only calmed down somewhat relatively recently (with the EU in the picture, most countries seem to have decided to play nice).

[Silent Film]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:31 PM, Duster said:

Hello,

it would be interesting, a scenario of the era of the war of the Balkans, with the Adriatic sea for the aircraft carriers and a part of Italy, Aviano / Ghedi for example .. the Alps, and NATO airports that participated. Just think of the Bihac base under the mountain with the mig21 inside!

ED and people what do you think?

 

Ciao

Absolutely.

[Silent Film]

On 11/13/2019 at 12:36 PM, Automan said:

Some years ago...a dream, not a wishlist

I think the map should go over the northern borders of Yugoslavia and Italy, to the east to include Sofia and Thessaloniki for Bulgarian and Greek users, then over the southern border of Albania to include the whole island of Kerkyra, and to the west to include Italian cities of Roma, Firenze, Verona. It could be nice to also include all of Sicily if it wouldn't make the map too large.

The map would be post cold war and early modern. It would include the most beautiful terrain: sea, islands, gulfs and bays, plains, mountains, forests, rivers, interesting cities. And lots of historical context, that could also include WWII.

[Silent Film]

Something like this. The size would be similar to existing maps. This map is a must have. I think it should be called Adriatic Map.

[Qcumber]

I want to bump this again to see if there is any interest. 

[Cool-Hand]

Anything DCS WWII these days I'm interested in...ETO, PTO, MTO ...anything. I wish they had a bigger team and plans to expand the WWII side of things at a faster than glacial pace.

Edited June 1 by Cool-Hand

[Slippa]

Yep. I’m up for pretty much anything from the 40s too.

Glacial would be an improvement. 

[Qcumber]

Inspiration for multiple scenarios and missions. I would love to have a Hurricane and Beaufighter!

 

 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Slippa said:

Glacial would be an improvement

"Glacial" is moving faster now due to global warming

[Slippa]

A Hurricane would be great. Don’t think they’ll entertain us but I’d love one.

Oh and a Typhoon… and a Wildcat… and a Corsair, B25, Sunderland etc. etc.

Props, props, more props and a bit of Malta wouldn’t be a bad thing at all. 

[bies]

My humble opinion is ED should make some coherent chosen operation. Not jumping on random places.

We have great Normandy 1944 with proper map, air/ground/sea assets, but the only problem with current Normandy 1944 is some of the first birds like Bf-109K4 P-51D, Fw190D9, don't fit the timeframe/operation. When later, created with better overall idea in mind, like Mossie, P-47D, Fw190A8, Spitfire IX fit quite well.

That's why right now it's probably a time to focus on Pacific when they already started with Marianas WW2 map, Corsair, Hellcat, maybe previous P-51, P-47 - and zero Japanese Zeroes and other, better fitting 1944 Marianas Philippines campaign Japanese aircraft.

So even though Mediterranean would be great as well it's better to focus on one theatre at the time.

[Qcumber]

1 hour ago, bies said:

My humble opinion is ED should make some coherent chosen operation. Not jumping on random places.

We have great Normandy 1944 with proper map, air/ground/sea assets, but the only problem with current Normandy 1944 is some of the first birds like Bf-109K4 P-51D, Fw190D9, don't fit the timeframe/operation. When later, created with better overall idea in mind, like Mossie, P-47D, Fw190A8, Spitfire IX fit quite well.

That's why right now it's probably a time to focus on Pacific when they already started with Marianas WW2 map, Corsair, Hellcat, maybe previous P-51, P-47 - and zero Japanese Zeroes and other, better fitting 1944 Marianas Philippines campaign Japanese aircraft.

So even though Mediterranean would be great as well it's better to focus on one theatre at the time.

I agree. Finish PTO first. However, I would like to see some early-mid WW2 at some point. 

[KaraHavaciIsHere]

AEGEAN MAP PLEASE

null

[Majkel333]

Hello DCS, 

any chance to have Poland on map, no as limited as Germany map, even in its further range it would be in future. Wish to fly over my house in southern Poland once. 

[Kang]

While I, too, hope that the Germany map gets expanded a bit further into Poland (and Czechoslovakia) than plans indicate so far, that's probably not going as far as that. I'm a bit afraid the chances aren't all that great to get it, but I might like it, too.

[Kang]

Hm... Aegean or Adriatic... that's about a coin-toss in my book.

[GameOver]

On 6/22/2025 at 1:27 PM, Majkel333 said:

Hello DCS, 

any chance to have Poland on map, no as limited as Germany map, even in its further range it would be in future. Wish to fly over my house in southern Poland once. 

I was hoping the Cold War map would include more of Poland and Czechoslovakia, as they played a significant role during that era. It would be amazing to fly MiG-21s, MiG-29s, or Su-22s over familiar terrain—especially for those of us who grew up watching these aircraft in action.

Personally, I remember seeing Su-22M4s in Piła as a kid. It would be an incredible experience to recreate those flights in DCS. Please consider adding Poland in greater detail—it would mean a lot to many of us!

Best regards from a Polish fan!

[szymixzmb]

I strongly support this idea, especially modern map with parts of Belarus and Baltics, that would be amazing