New DCS Theater Maps Wish Wish List

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Yellonet, what about the Balkans, or Greece/Cyprus, or even mixing Southern Europe with Northern Africa?

 

The Mediterranean isn't very big but it has a history of carriers venturing in it since World War II, and in all recent NATO/UN operations in the theatre. And it's also a blast for long range missions since you can fly out of wherever you want to hit targets near and far into enemy territory. Air-to-air refueling would be mandatory in this case, and you'd have to really fly wisely.

 

I do agree that to have two opposing carrier groups the Med is tiny as hell though. Perhaps Western portions of the Mediterranean with the Atlantic Ocean included would be more interesting? It'd be one f***ing huge map for sure. Most powerful nations have some interest or assets in North Africa, it's somewhat easy to drag them into a fireball.

 

Ideally, I'd vote for anything that's in this map, plus Northern Europe. Indian Ocean is attractive too, Navy-wise:

 

[Yellonet]

Yellonet, what about the Balkans, or Greece/Cyprus, or even mixing Southern Europe with Northern Africa?

 

The Mediterranean isn't very big but it has a history of carriers venturing in it since World War II, and in all recent NATO/UN operations in the theatre. And it's also a blast for long range missions since you can fly out of wherever you want to hit targets near and far into enemy territory. Air-to-air refueling would be mandatory in this case, and you'd have to really fly wisely.

 

I do agree that to have two opposing carrier groups the Med is tiny as hell though. Perhaps Western portions of the Mediterranean with the Atlantic Ocean included would be more interesting? It'd be one f***ing huge map for sure. Most powerful nations have some interest or assets in North Africa, it's somewhat easy to drag them into a fireball.

 

Ideally, I'd vote for anything that's in this map, plus Northern Europe. Indian Ocean is attractive too, Navy-wise:

 

Yeah, now that my awesome map above got shot down, I guess that the Balkans and the surrounding area could work, but I think we'd miss out on good naval action, it's a bit too closed in.

[shagrat]

Is that realy where your imagination ends allready? :huh:

 

Trust me theres people out there more suited for that job. You dont need to be scared that it becomes square land.

It is not about the lack of imagination. It is about fiction versus reality!

 

Most people in FSX or other civil flight sims do like to fly in a real world environment for sake of simulating the real thing. Take a 737 on a ride from Munich to Palma de Mallorca etc.

These people spend tons of money on realistic scenario add-ons, simply to enjoy flying somewhere they know, recognising landscapes and characteristic geographic features.

 

In military aviation the simulation of real world conflicts is added, still the recreation of real world events, with real world procedures is what enthusiastic simmers crave. It is not about the emotional kick to give your enemy a certain name, in fact many like to change sides and look into the conflict from the other side so maybe we fly a MIG-21bis for Russia soon :D

 

And many enjoy the pure event of flying a bird through the countryside, or making a bad weather approach after a fight or even without a fight on a regular basis.

 

See the Huey for example. It is thrilling to simply fly a low profile for a extraction of troops under fire or not.

 

A real world map adds to the immersion. Recognizing areas by having them on Google maps on your lap, or a real paper map. That is simulation flying.

 

Sahrani or yet another fictious Island realm is nice for ArmA, or Battlefield, but in a hardcore sim at least I personally expect a real world scenario simulation. :thumbup:

Edited May 13, 2013 by shagrat

[Pnume]

I would go for randomly generated maps :D

[ericoh]

It is not about the lack of imagination. It is about fiction versus reality!

 

Most people in FSX or other civil flight sims do like to fly in a real world environment for sake of simulating the real thing. Take a 737 on a ride from Munich to Palma de Mallorca etc.

These people spend tons of money on realistic scenario add-ons, simply to enjoy flying somewhere they know, recognising landscapes and characteristic geographic features.

 

In military aviation the simulation of real world conflicts is added, still the recreation of real world events, with real world procedures is what enthusiastic simmers crave. It is not about the emotional kick to give your enemy a certain name, in fact many like to change sides and look into the conflict from the other side so maybe we fly a MIG-21bis for Russia soon :D

 

And many enjoy the pure event of flying a bird through the countryside, or making a bad weather approach after a fight or even without a fight on a regular basis.

 

See the Huey for example. It is thrilling to simply fly a low profile for a extraction of troops under fire or not.

 

A real world map adds to the immersion. Recognizing areas by having them on Google maps on your lap, or a real paper map. That is simulation flying.

 

Sahrani or yet another fictious Island realm is nice for ArmA, or Battlefield, but in a hardcore sim at least I personally expect a real world scenario simulation. :thumbup:

 

I understand.

 

Tho you could print maps from fictional areas easily. I dont know how much people actualy flew a fighter jet over vietnam in this community but i doubt there will be so much moments where you recognize areas. You need to learn all the possible areas new anyway.

 

About conflicts, we dont even have 1 set of fitting aircraft that could fight eachother in a realistic enviroment.

 

I think fictional areas would leave a huge chunk of work out as in resembling the real life counterpart, still you could make awesome looking maps with great possiblities.

 

If ED could only invest in a modding scene, we could all see our desired things :)

 

P.S.: I dont mind if i get a real map of anything, i would gladly take them. I just think we should be open for more possibilities for a sped up development.

[shagrat]

About conflicts, we dont even have 1 set of fitting aircraft that could fight eachother in a realistic enviroment.

 

F-15C vs. Mig-29 in Desert Storm over Iraq... as well as Mig-21bis soon.

 

Honestly I'm not that much interested in Air Combat to prove anything, I totally enjoy the A-10C and the Huey at the moment, mostly in Ground Attack scenarios or COIN Ops.

 

Anyway the low threat support or ground attack scenarios are the most realistic apart from Vietnam, WWII or the conflicts in the middle-east between Israel and his neighbours...

[Erforce]

Why do you want an entire ocean to play with?

I never saw the Black sea really used in DCS atm.

DCS Ships are somewhat imbalanced, making naval warfare very very hard to script.

Adriatic sea can support enemy frigates (assume red side)

The whole carrier group can stay in Black sea. They have the range.

 

You need to fly by adriatic sea to come to Kosovo, and establish a safe zone before going further in land.

 

About Korea, i didn't heard about any NATO support for South and Russia for North (nowadays at least). It's only USA vs DPRK.

Moreover, Korean surrounding waters are not really used in other sims.=

[The_Pharoah]

I still reckon (which is supported by what the polls say at the moment) that the Persian Gulf is the way to go - unfortunately that area is, and has been for a long while, a hotbed of activity for war(s). Hmm let me see:

 

- Gulf War 1 and 2

- Afghanistan

- Iraq/Iran war

- 6 day war, etc

- not to mention the civil wars (Syria, Libya, etc)

 

We seriously need to simulate it. I agree with the post above re players want to simulate real life conflicts but from a gaming perspective only. If we're simulating aircraft as it should be...why not simulate the environments they operate in as well?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Erforce, I think the Ocean requirement is made on the assumption that, with DCS:F/A-18C, we will get improved carrier/naval ops, thus making an appropriate amount of water required to fully use the potential those advances should bring, if our guesses are right.

 

Obviously the F/A-18 can easily operate from land and still remain a very capable fighter/strike aircraft, but it's always nice to have the full pack.

 

Personally, I believe the Mediterranean area is perfect as you can model pretty much anything from Spain and France to Cyprus, Lybia or Israel. And it's a fair body of water to send your carriers to.

 

...and we can do strike missions lasting hours with loads of in-flight refueling. :music_whistling: Yes, I intend to replicate that legendary Tornado strike in Libya to the best extent I can. :D

[Erforce]

I still reckon (which is supported by what the polls say at the moment) that the Persian Gulf is the way to go

 

Naaaah, you're wrong. Take a look Again.

 

Europe wins. (46+47=93) ;)

And if you look for battles locations, this vid is made for you.

 

And again, Europe wins (sadly) :D

[Yellonet]

Why do you want an entire ocean to play with?

To support proper naval combat and carrier operations.

I never saw the Black sea really used in DCS atm.

The Black sea is too small for proper carrier operations, having a carrier in there doesn't seem necessary and also dangerous.

DCS Ships are somewhat imbalanced, making naval warfare very very hard to script.

I don't agree, andI if a map with good potential for naval combat was made, ships would follow.

Adriatic sea can support enemy frigates (assume red side)

The whole carrier group can stay in Black sea. They have the range.

 

You need to fly by adriatic sea to come to Kosovo, and establish a safe zone before going further in land.

This just sounds weird, the waters are just too small to support proper carrier operations. Something which should be a part of the DCS: F/A-18C module...

 

About Korea, i didn't heard about any NATO support for South and Russia for North (nowadays at least). It's only USA vs DPRK.

It was just a made up scenario.

Moreover, Korean surrounding waters are not really used in other sims.=

So?

[Erforce]

Yellonet, if you keep quoting my sentences one by one, at least, make something valuable.

So basically, Hills are higher in europe than Korea, but yes, Korea is not flat too. And I like high hills in my KA50.

Japan/China is not implemented in DCS. (maybe yet)

You don't need to fly over water to hit Pyongyang from Seoul. NATO Bases are in Italy for Balkans Theater.

The Black Sea is a playground no one use atm

Naval warfare is imbalanced. if you don't believe me, explain me how a single Moscow can kill half a dozen of US Cruiser/carrier group.

And how 2 Moscow + 2 Pyotr manage to survive (and kill most US counterpart) 7 ticonderoga+ 2 FFG + Nimitz + 8xFA-18 + 4xB-52. Only a MRLS can kill a RU ship. I can't say it's a balanced naval warfare.

Here's the mission for you. NavalWar 1.2.4.miz :smilewink:

 

I'm not sure i'll enjoy FA-18 naval ops in the long run. nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Every missile intercepted and Oh, look ! This beautiful S300PM coming at me at 6500Kph... Do you think USA will send any fighter against any well armed Russian warship? It would be more likely Cruise Missile and torpedoes.

 

Don't get me wrong, Korea is just nice, but it would be weird if ED plan to make this map after Nevada. A third party, probably (with the entire world). But with our actual units pool, Balkans and even Middle East are closer to Georgia than Korea.

 

This is my point of view. I understand yours. Not meant to agress anyone.

Anyway i would take any EDGEd map. Even Caucasus again. :D

But Hawaï.. hmmm. With KH-65 / AGM86 nukes why not :music_whistling:;)

[Noj]

just a note on my previous post - I don't mind what size the maps are, as long as they are large enough to do a reasonable mission on, they can cover a single small country or the whole universe - as long as there is some diversity of terrain I don't give a hoot.

 

My point is that up to that post, it seemed like everyone was arguing for their little slice of the pie, instead of looking at what others may like.

 

Hence saying that DCS/ED are likely to do what they think the majority will want, and not what "SIG" types do (Special Interest Groups - such as those who want to fly 5 hours to a fight or in Virtual Squadrons).

 

Personally I like both types of mission - depending what mood I'm in and how much time I have (seeing as there is no option to save a mission on the go).

 

I've spent weeks flying around the whole of the UK in real time (Farmstrips tour in FSX using VFR nav only - now there's a challenge ;) ) and yet in Air Hauler I use the sim-rate multiplier for just about every flight.

 

I also spend a hell of a lot more time on 'joyrides' in DCSWorld - just enjoying flying the aircraft around the scenery - than I do in combat missions.

 

So I really am not bothered about map size or mission flight length - anything will do.

 

As for the "ED staff" comment - they are representing the company in one way or another, whether moderating or testing, therefore AFAIC they are ED staff.

 

Alles klar :)

[Mistermann]

For what its worth I went with - Israel and surrounding countries

 

I'd prefer an area that's not been overdone, yet lends itself to realistic, plausible conflict scenarios. The historical importance of this region having 3 cultural religious origins and high tension make for interesting campaign scenarios.

 

I am not passionate about his vote and would just love to see some sort of Theater map expansion outside the current region.

[The_Pharoah]

Naaaah, you're wrong. Take a look Again.

 

Europe wins. (46+47=93) ;)

And if you look for battles locations, this vid is made for you.

 

And again, Europe wins (sadly) :D

 

Remember, this isn't WoT or something - we're talking about battles applicable to DCS ie. a/c (primarily jet a/c) and helicopter battles....which rules out about 95% of the battles on your vid (which is quite cool btw). If you had to develop maps to support historical battles applicable to DCS, then your range drops to something like:

 

- WW2 (Europe/Pacific)

- Korea

- Vietnam

- Persian Gulf (Arab/Israeli wars, Gulf War 1 and 2, Afghanistan, etc)

- Balkans/Russia (where DCS is currently based...map wise ie. the Russian/Georgian war)

 

Those were the major conflicts that employed jet a/c and helicopters and so we have to choose based on these.

 

I'd still prefer we base our 'virtual combat' on historical battles rather than what if...or I'd go play BF3 or Star Wars or something. :P

[streakeagle]

I voted for Vietnam, but Israel/Middle East is far better since it covers so many different eras of aircraft and armor.

 

The option I really wanted wasn't in the poll: the World.

I want a true sphere with addons slowly but surely populating it with detail, not unlike FSX and X-Plane.

[The_Pharoah]

The option I really wanted wasn't in the poll: the World.

 

:thumbup:

 

why limit ourselves eh?

 

In fact....I've got a few minutes to spare...here's my 'imagine if...' flight of fancy:

 

1. DCSW is modelled to include the whole world - similar to how its done in FSX. Obviously DCSW only creates what area you're flying in or something;

2. People sign up for nations eg. US, Russia, China, Aust, etc

3. There's a modelled 'World War' ie. where your nation then tries to dominate the world through attacking other nations.

4. The ground war would be driven by CA and would be dependant on supply lines like IRL (this is similar to the Scorched Earth campaign in IL2) so you have to protect your supply lines and not overstretch them.

5. ED would obviously have to model more a/c, vehicles, ships and other stuff including say C130s, C5s, AN2s, etc for hauling cargo/troops.

6. DCSW suddenly becomes something like World At War campaigns or something.

 

Now, imagine that! :) ok thats enough from me.

[mmaruda]

The thread is 28 pages - I have better things to do than read through it - sorry. :(

 

What I want to say is... I WOULD PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF DOUGH TO HAVE OTHER THEATRES!

 

Seriously ED, you want money, stop all the things you are doing, finish EDGE ASAP and release new maps. Everyone will buy it. EVERYONE (in Garry Oldman voice)!

[basset]

The Pharoah - Your idea would give me many many sleepless nights!

 

The squad I'm in used to play WW2 Online. Yes the graphics were not so good, the game was buggy, but there was freedom of movement, it was not just a jump in and go frag fest and everything was player vs player.

 

You and your squaddies could go fly CAP, or if on the ground - set up an ambush and sit and wait for something to show up. Sometimes for hours on end.

During this time we all developed some very strong friendships that have lasted to this day 10+ years later because of the time we sat around and BS'ed on TS waiting for something to show up.

 

Now granted we were all in our early 30's and up, and this style of ply suited us just fine, its not for everyone. But its a great gaming experience that I have yet to get out of another game.

 

The future of DCS, in my opinion can develop far beyond what we experienced in the old game.

 

The developer's here are very active with improving the flight sim and will be / or a third party will be, just as detailed about a ground element in the future I believe.

 

I have no idea on what will happen, but the environment you described would be so immersive it would be un-imaginable!

 

I hope your crystal ball is working tonight!

 

S!

[The_Pharoah]

oh good...glad I'm not the only one :)

[dotChuckles]

Can I have North Wales, Mach Loop and the Scottish Highlands for training and flying the Hawk/Harrier/Tonka when they come out?

[Erforce]

The_Pharoah, somehow you're right about the world battle locations, even if in 1914 we had tanks and planes in Europe already :-)

 

but the way you imagined things... I'm sure they could do that, but more like a RTS/RISK/Wargame ALB style.

Even if it's thrilling, ED has to focus on 1 better product/location than a FSX worldwide.

 

Another example : In Eve, players have thousands of solar systems to play with, and the majority of them are empty. You have some skirmish there and there. but 99% of the time, you're alone.

 

And DCS has way less players in multi than Eve.

 

 

Mmaruda, I think Minsk's team should be on EDGE 20/24 6/7 atm. And if they releasing a perfect scenery tool, i guess we can all wait in silence.

 

But yes, everyone will buy it :D

[Teapot]

:thumbup:

 

why limit ourselves eh?

 

In fact....I've got a few minutes to spare...here's my 'imagine if...' flight of fancy:

 

1. DCSW is modelled to include the whole world - similar to how its done in FSX. Obviously DCSW only creates what area you're flying in or something;

<snip>

Now, imagine that! :) ok thats enough from me.

 

what he said ... :thumbup:

[blkspade]

I'd like see to see engine optimization well before something like new terrain could begin to matter. Beyond that more water area would probably be more beneficial if we've to ever have reasonable carrier ops. Anyone spending copious amounts of time staring at the scenery in DCS is probably playing the wrong flight sim anyway. If you're in a fighter the only landmarks of merit are airports and maybe certain mountains. If you're ground pounding the quality on the terrain probably help more than what ever pseudo familiar shapes it may form. You end up attacking vehicles in either airfields, empty fields, or sparse cities. The limitation is certainly not current hardware, its the lack of optimization for current hardware, along with the persistent use of the DX9 API.

 

I don't how many of you here follow technology to the extent that I do, but the current trend in CPU advancement is is not about ramping up clock rates and thus single thread performance, but power efficiency. The engine will see benefits from dropping 32bit support, but that alone only gives us more 'space' to stuff all the pretty things into, but with no means to go about actually processing it all any faster. Through the power efficiency performance is increased with the addition of cores and SMP. Once the Devs start programming with this in mind I could be more enthusiastic about the potential of other areas of combat.

[blkspade]

Oh and I found myself particularly annoyed with the 'Airquake' stuff. If anyone can really think of any of it as airquake, then thats really what the majority of any of multiplayer component boils down to. Its all gameplay. If it takes you 10min or 2 hours to find, engage, kill or be killed by the enemy, and you respawn, you're 'quaking'.

 

Having maps large enough to warrant an actual need for AAR would be awesome, for single player. Perhaps in the few organized events that happen it could work. Missions of that scale just wouldn't function properly for your day to day public server.