ED Forums - View Single Post - Unrealistic Threat Types
View Single Post
Old 01-13-2018, 09:21 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,575

Originally Posted by frixon28 View Post
Well I guess if you consider 1970s-1980s Cold War Europe "Low Threat" . No doubt the Hawg thrives in low-mediums threat environments, look in just the last couple years in Operation Inherent Resolve. But it's not a Coin aircraft, its an attack aircraft. Maybe I'm just looking into this too much, but I consider low threat environment aircraft to be such as the ones being tested in the USAF OA-X competition right now, turboprops for COIN.
One of the core designs for A-10 was that it is cheap to build and cheap to maintain. So you can quickly get them out of the factory and spend them in attacks. The aircraft is very well only armored for two things: 1) Pilot survivability, as he is the most expensive part of the whole aircraft really. 2) Most important parts duplicated opposite sides so one side damage doesn't render aircraft down but allows pilot to reach back to safe zone to eject.
The aircraft was as well designed to easily be field repaired for minor damages from wings to tails to engines etc so if a strike force comes back with some operational aircrafts, they can be quickly swapped by parts to get them fly again for a second sortie by sacrificing few other more damaged ones.
It was never designed to be a "flying tank" (what is based to that idea it is a "tank buster" and meant to be used against armored vehicles) by the armor. So you are not meant to fly and take hits and survive from it like it is nothing.

Though we have to remember that even though this is a flight simulator, it is a game at the same time. If people want to fly their A-10 loaded to the brim with munitions flying at 50 feet to take out SA-6 sites, they will. I've created about 100 realistic missions, with realistic threats in it is much more enjoyable to try and employ the aircraft like it was/is.
Yes, but this is the problem in the current DCS (<2.5 at least) that we can't have a semi-realistic missions as we don't have a unit management as we should. Example, we should just be commanding a platoon or at most ATGM/Sniper team size infantry units and not individually but just as a platoon or team and let the AI position individual soldiers to positions they think is good. Same is with ie. MBT platoons that we are commanding individual ones, while we should just give a command for specific area and the threat direction, rules of engagements (zone, ranges, type etc) and let the AI to work out the rest. And then we don't have a communication simulation where delays of information passing between units is counted in, a inaccuracy of the units positions etc. Instead all is with perfect information.

But maybe we are getting there, ie how ED is developing the skeleton models for infantry etc. And as Wags mentioned that old engine before 2.5 was holding back the Combined Arms module, maybe it is a hint that they have been developing core functions for the unit commanding and all information warfare part that we can see in the future something closer to a "Close Combat" kind unit commanding and operations. So the AI would take care of the micromanagement and leave the mission designers to make the larger scale decisions if so wanted.

This could allow to build a more realistic missions more easily, or keep even the simple "fun factored" ones where target is a SA-6 or MBT Platoon alone middle of open field without any cover or support, just waiting that someone would toss a laser guided bomb at their direction.

Now alone the new engine in 2.x with Normandy tree system has started to change the techniques how to fly and how to deploy weapons, so when Caucasus 2.5 comes out, we might see a lot different methods to do the missions if mission designers are willing to polish the units operational tactics more realistic instead just throwing them to somewhere open.
And yet we will likely be seeing a multiplayer servers with easy target areas and air quake scenarios.
Fri13 is offline