NAVAL Modules someone ?

[SN68]

Hi there,

Just launching a potencial call to the dev community, to see if  could be achievable the creation of a NAVAL content  official Full Modules. I know, I know its a flight simulator, but all is slaved together. Asset Packs ranging from the 40s to our days, and the main idea, bring on new types and classes of Carriers on a way Super Carrier style.

So, what you think about ?

[Kang]

It sure is an interesting thought, but seeing the state of AI naval assets and how the 'year of naval focus' turned out, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Frankly, I think we will see both ASW from the air and probably flying boats implemented in modules before that.

[Kappa-06MHR]

+1000

I really really want Naval warfare in DCS.

• ED have developed with succes CAS (with Helicopters & planes)
• ED have developed modern aerial fight and even WW2 dogfight
• ED have developed logistic & transport (Helicopters, plane to come)

But ED negliged the naval warfare aspect. There is some module who have anti ship weapons (like Viggen), but the Ship are not detailed, and we have no specialised gameplay about naval warfare.

What we want : 

• Navals modules like KA-27, MH-60R or SH-2 Seasprite with fonctionnal active/passive sonobuoys, VDS sonar, torpedos, surface radar, torpedos guidance system, mining/ demining...
• Full modelised ships, with realistic dammage models, subsystem (armement, weapon, etc...), with fregate, destroyers, patrol boat, corvette, etc....
• Submarine warfare
• Parametrable sea level

43 minutes ago, Kang said:

and how the 'year of naval focus' turned out [...]

Is ED ever focus on naval ? I follow newsletter and developpment of DCS since 7 years and I never see ED focus on that aspect. They must, it's a very cool aspect, with a lot of new mission that change comparing to classical warfare. The best new I have seen the month is the remake of the Grisha by Currenthill (And I hope the Rezky Krivak II class will follow). I love making KH-25ML pass with buddylasing between Kamov on thoses ships.

[upyr1]

I have asked for this as well. My vote for the first ship module would be the Iowa-class battleships. 

They have a cult following they were used off and on for 50 years. Also there are some must have opfor ships. 

Yamato and Kirov comes to my mind.

Edited November 17 by upyr1

[upyr1]

IMHO the questions for ship modules isn't just if we should have them but what to start with and how much abstraction is necessary.  

[draconus]

On 11/14/2025 at 8:47 PM, upyr1 said:

what to start with

Round Earth to simulate sea horizon from the ship pov.

[Kang]

On 11/13/2025 at 12:58 PM, Kappa-06MHR said:

Is ED ever focus on naval ? I follow newsletter and developpment of DCS since 7 years and I never see ED focus on that aspect. They must, it's a very cool aspect, with a lot of new mission that change comparing to classical warfare. The best new I have seen the month is the remake of the Grisha by Currenthill (And I hope the Rezky Krivak II class will follow). I love making KH-25ML pass with buddylasing between Kamov on thoses ships.

If memory serves me right they declared the 'year of naval focus' around the time the F-18C released, to make the Supercarrier thing more viable. That year of intensive focus produced the Handy Wind bulk carrier, so... not a whole lot.

[draconus]

40 minutes ago, Kang said:

If memory serves me right they declared the 'year of naval focus' around the time the F-18C released, to make the Supercarrier thing more viable. That year of intensive focus produced the Handy Wind bulk carrier, so... not a whole lot.

You're not very fair here. There were a lot of ships added since then, most notably during additions of modules F/A-18C (SCs, Tico, Arleigh Burke), F-14 (Forrestal), South Atlantic (a dozen new ships!) or F4U (Essex) but there were also other ex. from Deka (Types 052B/C, 054C), CurrentHill (Project-22160) or ED (Ropucha) and I might have forgot some more.

Edited November 17 by draconus

[Kang]

Just now, draconus said:

You're not very fair here. There were a lot of ships added since then, most notably during additions of modules F/A-18C (SCs, Tico, Arleigh Burke), F-14 (Forrestal), AV-8B (Tarawa), South Atlantic (a dozen new ships!) or F4U (Essex) but there were also other ex. from Deka (Types 052B/C, 054C), CurrentHill (Project-22160) or ED (Ropucha) and I might have forgot some more.

The Supercarriers were a paid-for module of its own, the Arleigh Burke is only (or was at least then) available to SC module owners, the Ticonderoga has been in DCS long before that, the Ropucha, I admit, I forgot although it is much more recent addition, and all of the others you mentioned got added by third parties.

Maybe I am not being very fair just now, but I'll stand by my statement that the 'year of naval focus' was a major disappointment.

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, Kang said:

The Supercarriers were a paid-for module of its own, the Arleigh Burke is only (or was at least then) available to SC module owners, the Ticonderoga has been in DCS long before that, the Ropucha, I admit, I forgot although it is much more recent addition, and all of the others you mentioned got added by third parties.

Maybe I am not being very fair just now, but I'll stand by my statement that the 'year of naval focus' was a major disappointment.

Dcs Naval development is a major disappointment 

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, draconus said:

Round Earth to simulate sea horizon from the ship pov.

Improving the earth modeling is a given. Though what ship module do you think would be the best to start with.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Though what ship module do you think would be the best to start with.

I think they could start the concept by introducing CA-like controls to some smaller size ship. Small steps approach. Simplified steering, a few weapon stations, radars, stuff like that. It's a huge amount of work even for a small vessel to be simulated in full fidelity. DCS would need a lot of rework on water/waves/wind interaction and DM is enormous task. I'd not hope to see it in DCS being realistic.

[Silver_Dragon]

Let's see, and I think here, we are mixing up terms.... ED spoke of the "year of the naval focus"... and we all know he was referring to the Supercarrier module focused on carrier operations, not naval modules proper.

Just a few examples of things that are missing from the SuperCarrier and that affect all AI...

• There is still nothing related to "helicopter operations" nor the deck crew for takeoffs, landings, deck movements, etc. (I see it as imperative, especially when it is an aeronaval operations module. The fact that we still don't know anything about this is almost heresy).
• The Naval Operations ATC is restricted to the aircraft carrier (and is very limited).
• There are no Task Force formations (Main Group, AAW, ASW screens, Radar Pickets, etc.). Nor coordinated operations, many of which are essential for WW2.
• You cannot add or detach forces from a Task Force. Nor can you have Task Forces acting in coordination.
• You cannot define search sectors, threat axes or relative positions, nor can patrol sectors be defined on the maps. The same thing happens with aircraft, no CAPs over Task Forces or defining aerial search sectors (something also essential for WW2).
• The aircraft carrier itself does not have differentiated radars or subsystems, the armament is weakened (cannons can engage air targets or have deprecated), and very important things are missing, such as the physics of a ship on the sea (we still have the same effects as in LOMAC), and, of course, no one has deigned to put electronic countermeasures, decoys (launchable, airborne, and towed), Chaff, and Flares. Something very essential.
• The "unmasking batteries" maneuver.... no ship does it when attacked..
• Let's not even talk about combat formations and tactics....

This has already been discussed at length in several posts and has been left gathering dust... And we know that ED has limited resources, but it wouldn't be bad at all to finally have a naval "team" for both the AI and for physics and a real maritime engine (sonar, swell, weather, etc.). Creating modules requires hiring several engineers focused on this (the same as the terrestrial issue).

You know how much I love the naval subject... (Harpoon V and derivatives), and I know that current technology is advancing tremendously and there are topics that are still restricted and secret, but the mode of operation is cataloged, and of course, there is enough open information about WW2 combat tactics, so it wouldn't be bad to see some progress, especially with the Pacific coming.

Regarding modules, it's as Wags says, 15-20 years in the future at the very least... if ED moves in that direction and there are resources...

Edited Tuesday at 12:36 PM by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:58 AM, Kappa-06MHR said:

What we want : 

• Navals modules like KA-27, MH-60R or SH-2 Seasprite with fonctionnal active/passive sonobuoys, VDS sonar, torpedos, surface radar, torpedos guidance system, mining/ demining...
• Full modelised ships, with realistic dammage models, subsystem (armement, weapon, etc...), with fregate, destroyers, patrol boat, corvette, etc....
• Submarine warfare
• Parametrable sea level

That is another nut we have to crack, but it has already been discussed at length in some forum post....

I would almost say that @NineLine or @BIGNEWYshould open dedicated forun sections (no modules) for us:

• Naval environment (ships, operations, naval warfare) topics
• Ground environment (vehicles, maneuver, ground warfare) topics

[OmasRachE]

Sounds interessting. I would be pleased if we get more naval assets even if they were the same standard as the existing. But the lists are quite short even fror big countries like china. The WW2 Assets for PTO hopefully will come soon but also modern and CW assets would be great to get at least realistic looking targets at sea. The Idea of sonobuoys and torpedos is great. I would love to fly a S-61 hunting down some submarines around Kola. 

 

But at the end there is so much missing content for a carrier environment. Beginning with the Super Hornet, at least as an AI and going on to things like Prowler, Skyhawk, Navy Phantom. You name it. 

 

I would love to see ED integrating more mod assets like they did with Currenthill and also invest more time by themselves in assets and AI models of all kinds. We have nice modules to fly, but building a mission there is nearly allways some asset missing, which prevents us in getting everything out of our modules.

Edited Tuesday at 01:07 PM by OmasRachE

[buceador]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

There are no Task Force formations (Main Group, AAW, ASW screens, Radar Pickets, etc.). Nor coordinated operations, many of which are essential for WW2.

Many of the concepts talked about here would come under the umbrella of 'Game Play' and as we know, from the now famous video, ED admits to knowing little about Game Play, they create beautifully detailed models... 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That is another nut we have to crack, but it has already been discussed at length in some forum post....

I would almost say that @NineLine or @BIGNEWYshould open dedicated forun sections (no modules) for us:

• Naval environment (ships, operations, naval warfare) topics
• Ground environment (vehicles, maneuver, ground warfare) topics

That is definitely needed.

[Kang]

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let's see, and I think here, we are mixing up terms.... ED spoke of the "year of the naval focus"... and we all know he was referring to the Supercarrier module focused on carrier operations, not naval modules proper.

Just a few examples of things that are missing from the SuperCarrier and that affect all AI...

• There is still nothing related to "helicopter operations" nor the deck crew for takeoffs, landings, deck movements, etc. (I see it as imperative, especially when it is an aeronaval operations module. The fact that we still don't know anything about this is almost heresy).
• The Naval Operations ATC is restricted to the aircraft carrier (and is very limited).
• There are no Task Force formations (Main Group, AAW, ASW screens, Radar Pickets, etc.). Nor coordinated operations, many of which are essential for WW2.
• You cannot add or detach forces from a Task Force. Nor can you have Task Forces acting in coordination.
• You cannot define search sectors, threat axes or relative positions, nor can patrol sectors be defined on the maps. The same thing happens with aircraft, no CAPs over Task Forces or defining aerial search sectors (something also essential for WW2).
• The aircraft carrier itself does not have differentiated radars or subsystems, the armament is weakened (cannons can engage air targets or have deprecated), and very important things are missing, such as the physics of a ship on the sea (we still have the same effects as in LOMAC), and, of course, no one has deigned to put electronic countermeasures, decoys (launchable, airborne, and towed), Chaff, and Flares. Something very essential.
• The "unmasking batteries" maneuver.... no ship does it when attacked..
• Let's not even talk about combat formations and tactics....

This has already been discussed at length in several posts and has been left gathering dust... And we know that ED has limited resources, but it wouldn't be bad at all to finally have a naval "team" for both the AI and for physics and a real maritime engine (sonar, swell, weather, etc.). Creating modules requires hiring several engineers focused on this (the same as the terrestrial issue).

You know how much I love the naval subject... (Harpoon V and derivatives), and I know that current technology is advancing tremendously and there are topics that are still restricted and secret, but the mode of operation is cataloged, and of course, there is enough open information about WW2 combat tactics, so it wouldn't be bad to see some progress, especially with the Pacific coming.

Regarding modules, it's as Wags says, 15-20 years in the future at the very least... if ED moves in that direction and there are resources...

I didn't mean to insinuate that said 'year of focus' was expected to result in a full ship-based module really, rather I am in full agreement with you here that the AI naval assets are still sorely lacking in many regards.

Frankly I don't see any chance for a naval module without a lot of other things getting solved first.

[OmasRachE]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Kang:

I didn't mean to insinuate that said 'year of focus' was expected to result in a full ship-based module really, rather I am in full agreement with you here that the AI naval assets are still sorely lacking in many regards.

Frankly I don't see any chance for a naval module without a lot of other things getting solved first.

Exactly my point. Lets get other things sorted and in the meantime just some aditional naval assets would be cool. Most of the time they dont have to do much instead of looking good for the start and landing or acting as a solid target with rudimentary air defense capabilities.

[upyr1]

On 11/19/2025 at 2:49 AM, OmasRachE said:

Exactly my point. Lets get other things sorted and in the meantime just some aditional naval assets would be cool. Most of the time they dont have to do much instead of looking good for the start and landing or acting as a solid target with rudimentary air defense capabilities.

I would also like some AI improvements mainly I'd like the option to use Amphibious warships as spawn points for amphibious vehicles and landing craft. I don't care about the animation right now just an embark and disembark waypoint. Also I'd like to see imporvements in how gunfire is modeled as well.

improve AA firing for the dual purpose guns

Give ships the ability to fire directly at enemy land units with in visual range 

Also model airbone land based forward observers which would amount to the AI picking targets and shell types to hit them with.

[Dragon1-1]

First of all, we need a sensible DM for ships. They're too big and too complex to simulate as a single hunk with a gamey healthbar. We need to be able to damage individual components like sensors and weapons. Right now, ships are little more than props, the warships are just well armed props.

Basic ship ops could be part of DC, with the ships able to provide on demand cruise missile strikes, naval gunfire support and helo ops, in addition to acting like mobile SAM sites. Missions to do VERTREP with a helo slingloading a crate of cannon shells into the forward hatch or onto the flight deck could be fun to fly. For the red side, shooting down a plane on a COD mission would be a big boon to hamstringing a hostile carrier. And of course, the likes of Ropucha would transport land units over the sea. This would enable them to work as fully fledged element of DC.

The next stage would be adding ship logistics, such as cargo ships moving into ports to resupply and UNREP for naval vessels. You could capture cargo ships (or finish off crippled warships) by landing commandos on the helideck or fastroping them onto deck, sink them with ship to ship weapons, or mine the harbor from air to stop them from arriving there. That'd put the DCS ship simulation roughly on par with what CMO provides. Those are relatively straightforward features that can already be implemented, if clumsily, by scripting.

Only after we have those basic features are any extras worth considering.