New map idea: open water

So a North Atlantic map where the only place for Bears and Backfires to take off is a single NATO airbase? As much as a I love Iceland, this map would be extremely limited in utility.

Here is my entry for a cheap, mostly-water map: Southern Kamchatka-Aleutians.

There is a major Soviet air base at Petropavlovsk, hosting a PVO regiment and a naval aviation regiment. There are several unoccupied, austere airfield on Kamchatka that were built to accept deployments of Badger and Backfire naval strike regiments.

Eareckson Air Station on Shemya frequently hosted US reconnaissance and ASW deployments. It is large enough to accept any aircraft in the US inventory. Attu also has a small airfield.

Petropavlovsk is the most important submarine base of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Other than this, Kamchatka is mostly barren wilderness. There is 1000 km of water between Petro and Shemya and as much Pacific Ocean to the south as you could ever wish for (2800 km to Midway).

maybe spitzbergen or other parts of svalbard could be interesting to have some landmass as reference and the possibility for airbases, instead of only water...

i guess svalbard it is of some strategic interest, so might make sense for fictional "cold war gone hot" scenarios.

it is also only sparsely populated and quite barren in apperance, so it might be less effort to recreate it, compared to "lusher" regions...

So a North Atlantic map where the only place for Bears and Backfires to take off is a single NATO airbase? As much as a I love Iceland, this map would be extremely limited in utility.

Nope only Keflavik has a military presence IRL. There are 32 airports on Iceland and DCS is a sandbox - we can use any of them as we please (how many people in DCS use Mineralnye-Vody, Sukhumi-Babushara, Nalchik, Beslan, Gelendzhik or Batumi? None of those are military airbases, yet we still use them), larger aircraft can takeoff wherever there's a runway long enough which there should be plenty of in Iceland (well maybe not for a fully loaded Tu-95MS), dotted around it's terrain. You just need to be careful with how heavily you load them.

Plus even if these aircraft can't operate out of the other airfields it can still operate out of this map regardless, you just have to be a bit more crafty making your mission when you use the aircraft - hardly "extremely limited in utility" plus it's closer to a cold war conflict which is prevalent in the North Atlantic, the GUIK gap being one of strategic military interest for multiple nations and being a principle site for SOSUS.

Plus you can always extend it any direction you want to include larger airbases, I only constricted because as a map it's fairly simple and functional without - low amount of populated areas, mostly hilly and barren terrain and 3 islands that are large enough for aircraft and CA operations - allowing for a Falklands style campaign.

Plus if we ever got the assets (static objects wise) to build semi-permanent airbases it wouldn't matter.

Here is my entry for a cheap, mostly-water map: Southern Kamchatka-Aleutians.

 

There is a major Soviet air base at Petropavlovsk, hosting a PVO regiment and a naval aviation regiment. There are several unoccupied, austere airfield on Kamchatka that were built to accept deployments of Badger and Backfire naval strike regiments.

 

Eareckson Air Station on Shemya frequently hosted US reconnaissance and ASW deployments. It is large enough to accept any aircraft in the US inventory. Attu also has a small airfield.

 

Petropavlovsk is the most important submarine base of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Other than this, Kamchatka is mostly barren wilderness. There is 1000 km of water between Petro and Shemya and as much Pacific Ocean to the south as you could ever wish for (2800 km to Midway).

Quite like it, however Shemya is a titchy island looking at the satellite picture and is essentially all airfield - which would make CA operations on it more limited in comparison to the Shetlands/Faroe islands.

Attu is more like it, Casco Cove CGS has a runway just shy of 2km long - same for Iceland, though Attu's terrain is far more complex but pretty beautiful - not sure how CA operations would work though...

I think I've found the airbase you were talking about, it's nice and large and perfect for everything, however in this map you are forced to use different Islands, the only other airbase in that region of Russia is Lenino ~120km away which is great - but now were restricted to the number of total airports in the region. Now that region of Russia looks as if it would be great for CA operations, it's nice and large and has quite good variety and doesn't look too complex for building FOBs/FARPs and semi-permanent bases if/when we get the assets for them

Essentially, apart from carrier operations it will essentially always be a Shemya + Attu vs that portion of Russia or Lenino vs Petropavlovsk for an entirely land based conflict.

With Iceland, the Faroe islands and the Shetland Islands, Iceland is good for internalised - the suitable airports (Keflavík and Egilsstaðir being the largest (3km and 2km runways respectively) are on opposite sides of each other, giving plenty of room for all kinds of operations and taking advantage of the terrain - and the terrain is barren and open and relatively flat on all 3 islands, and all are large enough to support land operations, in some form whilst still being complex enough for variety. Making it suitable for a Falklands type scenario, you could even have all 3 islands under different control, you can't really do that with this map because Attu and Shemya are literally a stone's throw away from each other.

Nope only Keflavik has a military presence IRL. There are 32 airports on Iceland and DCS is a sandbox - we can use any of them as we please (how many people in DCS use Mineralnye-Vody, Sukhumi-Babushara, Nalchik, Beslan, Gelendzhik or Batumi? None of those are military airbases, yet we still use them), larger aircraft can takeoff wherever there's a runway long enough which there should be plenty of in Iceland (well maybe not for a fully loaded Tu-95MS), dotted around it's terrain. You just need to be careful with how heavily you load them.

 

Plus even if these aircraft can't operate out of the other airfields it can still operate out of this map regardless, you just have to be a bit more crafty making your mission when you use the aircraft - hardly "extremely limited in utility" plus it's more realistic considering a red-storm rising scenario

 

Plus you can always extend it any direction you want to include larger airbases.

 

Plus if we ever got the assets (static objects wise) to build semi-permanent airbases it wouldn't matter.

Which airports on Iceland other than Kevlavik have runways that can support the Backfire? Which airports have ramp space to support more than two Backfires (let alone a squadron or regiment)?

Air spawns air infeasible. Should all those bombers drop into the water after having completed their mission? Not having a place to land screws up AI behavior anyway.

Workarounds everywhere. I think it is unwise to spend considerable resources on new maps and design them from the start with workarounds in mind. Might as well have a deep look at history and gameplay, and select a design that works better.

The only halfway realistic scenario I see working well for Iceland would be the Soviets having occupied the Island and US naval forces trying to reclaim it. Possible, although extremely unlikely. While this is a very nice scenario that I would certainly enjoy, it is also very limited. There are better options with more variety.

Sure, but only 3 of them are paved I think, all in the western half.

 

Akureyri vs Keflavik?

I can find 24 paved runways in Iceland, and not just in the western half, there are some in the eastern half as well.

Sure not all of these airports are suitable for heavy stuff and we will require airfield arresting equipment to be placed in the mission editor for them.

What about Egilsstaðir Airport? It has a 2km long runway, and is 414km away from Keflavík in the north east of Iceland.

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

Which airports on Iceland other than Kevlavik have runways that can support the Backfire? Which airports have ramp space to support more than two Backfires (let alone a squadron or regiment)?

 

Air spawns air infeasible. Should all those bombers drop into the water after having completed their mission? Not having a place to land screws up AI behavior anyway.

 

Workarounds everywhere. I think it is unwise to spend considerable resources on new maps and design them from the start with workarounds in mind. Might as well have a deep look at history and gameplay, and select a design that works better.

 

The only halfway realistic scenario I see working well for Iceland would be the Soviets having occupied the Island and US naval forces trying to reclaim it. Possible, although extremely unlikely. While this is a very nice scenario that I would certainly enjoy, it is also very limited. There are better options with more variety.

How long a runway do you need to support a Backfire? I'll answer your question.

Designing a map around 1 type of aircraft and having that alone determine it's usefulness doesn't seem like a great idea either... The whole point of ocean maps are naval operations, not to just have a load of ocean between where you took off and your target...

And did I not say extend the map if need be?

History? GUIK gap anyone? Cold war anybody?

Nothing I've said is 'workarounds' certainly not everywhere...

Halfway realistic? We have NTTR, how realistic is having Russia invade Nevada?

Essentially, apart from carrier operations it will essentially always be a Shemya + Attu vs that portion of Russia or Lenino vs Petropavlovsk for an entirely land based conflict.

It is a map for naval-air operations. Possible scenarios: carrier vs. carrier, US carrier vs. Soviet land, Soviet carrier vs. US land, land vs. land, USMC landing on Kamchatka, Soviet landing on Attu/Shemya, USMC reclaiming Attu. Everything of this were actual, realistic possibilities during war.

Both sides having their own major bases is so important for map design. Please not again the same situation as the "100% Soviet airbases" Caucasus map we had since decades.

I would take two new maps.

First a pure ocean water. No landmass at all. No islands, nothing such....

That is a pure fleet vs fleet attack. Anti-submarine, search and rescue, patrol etc etc.

Should be very easy and quick to do compared to maps with land.

Then take the same ocean and throw there the islands or land on other side. So you can make a fleet vs country missions.

And then if want to do bonus make a map where there is land on one end, then about 100km separation and then you get islands and then the ocean. So you can have a another kind missions like fleet vs country with islands as buffer and then mainland. Or two country attacks between islands vs mainland.

My map is naval-air and land operations, you can do a land conflict on any of the 3 islands in my map, you can't really say the same for Shemya (it's all airbase).

Essentially you could recreate the Falklands campaign if you wish - if you can compromise national realism. (Then again NTTR and Caucasus aren't fantastic for national realism - NTTR is a training range predominantly, and is the site of red flag, Caucasus was the site

Possible scenarios for mine:

Strictly land based (just by start and end locations): Iceland vs Iceland, Iceland vs Faroe Islands, Iceland vs Faroe Islands, Iceland vs Shetland Islands, Shetland Islands vs Faroe Islands. Even 1v1v1 if we ever got multiple scenarios. In short lots of different combinations using strictly land based aircraft.

Maritime based: Carrier group vs Iceland/Faroe Islands/Shetland Islands, Amphibious assaults of Iceland/Faroe Islands/Shetland Islands, Surface action groups from multiple fronts against other surface action groups. Again variety.

Both sides having their own major bases is so important for map design. Please not again the same situation as the "100% Soviet airbases" Caucasus map we had since decades.

Personally the more I can do in a map with regards to land, sea and air and the greater amount of types of warfare and the ability to mix and match is important to me.

The GUIK gap is one of the most strategically important areas in the world and one of the most prevalent naval chokepoint during the cold war - especially for submarines, it's close proximity it's important for the UK, USA, Russia, Norway and Denmark. It's a cold war hotspot for multiple nations. With many nations operating there.

It was strategically important during WWII as well as the Cold War.

It's also not incredibly too far away from the NATO northern flank - again a major area of interest during the cold war not much further is the Barents Sea and the Severomorsk naval base - home to the Russian northern fleet.

Now I'm not going to say which map is better as we both seem to have different interests, different things that are important to us. I'm not going to argue, we just have a difference in what's important to us.

The GIUK gap is where my nation has a principle interest and is largely where they operate so I do have a bias for it anyway. It's also been a key location for Red Storm rising, Hunt for Red October - so we have inspiration there. Plus it brings back nostalgia from SF2 NA but eh, that's irrelevant, but still feasible for multiple scenarios.

I would take two new maps.

 

First a pure ocean water. No landmass at all. No islands, nothing such....

That is a pure fleet vs fleet attack. Anti-submarine, search and rescue, patrol etc etc.

 

Should be very easy and quick to do compared to maps with land.

 

Then take the same ocean and throw there the islands or land on other side. So you can make a fleet vs country missions.

 

And then if want to do bonus make a map where there is land on one end, then about 100km separation and then you get islands and then the ocean. So you can have a another kind missions like fleet vs country with islands as buffer and then mainland. Or two country attacks between islands vs mainland.

Yes, good ideas, though 100km is a bit small IMO for open ocean conflict, then again an entirely ocean map would be good, easy and simple to do - I bet it would only take a week or 2 to complete.

I only favour the GIUK gap because it's close to home for me and to me has the greatest variety (except not so maybe for large, land based aircraft).

With an open water map, as there's nothing on it but ships, hoping for some massive sizes, e.g. 1000*1000km.

To each his own, but really? Having the 2 sides with their own style of airbase? I mean NTTR is 100% American airfields, Normandy has a few British airfields and the rest is up to you. I respect your opinion for the sake of complete accuracy, but surely it's less of a priority than what you can actually do with the map?

As you said, to each his own. But yes, really. I am interested in historical authentic scenarios, not A vs B. Having a Caucasus map with no Turkish air bases is as problematic as having an Iceland map with no Soviet air bases.

The huge strategic importance of the GIUK gap is as an anti-submarine barrier. Most warfare in this area would have revolved around ASW. No relevant number of Soviet surface units or aircraft could have reached Iceland without having first defeated NATO in the Norwegian Sea and Norway. Iceland was the prize of the battle, not the scene of the battle.

Not a bad idea ;)

As you said, to each his own. But yes, really. I am interested in historical authentic scenarios, not A vs B. Having a Caucasus map with no Turkish air bases is as problematic as having an Iceland map with no Soviet air bases.

 

The huge strategic importance of the GIUK gap is as an anti-submarine barrier. Most warfare in this area would have revolved around ASW. No relevant number of Soviet surface units or aircraft could have reached Iceland without having first defeated NATO in the Norwegian Sea and Norway. Iceland was the prize of the battle, not the scene of the battle.

Okay, if having authentic airbases for the nation operating them is of large importance to you then fine, I can see why your proposal is better suited for you, it wouldn't be a bad theatre either, it's just how in my primitive mind of mission editing one I wouldn't prefer (though I'd enjoy it nonetheless) over a GIUK gap map (which, being British, I have a bias for anyway) - I'm not going to dictate to you what should be important to you - absolutely fine :thumbup:

With your scenario of defeating NATO first before being able to land units, whilst in the real world yes, but DCS is a sandbox and it can be tailored how we please. Plus Iceland could well serve as a battleground - fighting for control of it, as with the other islands - we can do scenarios as we like. Though your stance on real world authenticity is still valid and I'm perfectly fine with that stance if it's important to you. I only chose the GIUK gap because it's close to home and my preference is naval combat involving aviation as well as amphibious based. So something like the Falklands really appeals to me, and I can foresee missions similar to a 'what-if' Falklands style campaign though expanded over 3 separate territories - which appeals to me.

Yes, good ideas, though 100km is a bit small IMO for open ocean conflict, then again an entirely ocean map would be good, easy and simple to do - I bet it would only take a week or 2 to complete.

 

I only favour the GIUK gap because it's close to home for me and to me has the greatest variety (except not so maybe for large, land based aircraft).

Ocean (700km) - island (80km) - ocean (100km) - land (100km).

That way there is 100km between land and islands so you can't land there but need a lighter ships and you can do ground forces landing assaults to either one, yet flying over that ocean ain't to time consuming.

So maybe even 200km between so not too fast.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

GUIK gap. The naval equivalent of Fulda Gap in West Germany. In Red Storm Rising Iceland scenario. Soviet Russian paratroops and naval infantry occupy the island. NATO tactical airpower clashes with Russian tactical aircraft. Specifically Mig-29 vs F/A-18. So an updated GUIK scenario and theater would be interesting. Strategic goal would be to prevent Russian air, and naval units from using attacking US-UK supply sea routes. Key terrain would be improved runways in Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Jan Mayen Island. Totally old school NATO-Air, Land, Sea Battle doctrine from 1980's.

Air component fight would be over water and over mountainous terrain. Plenty of opportunity for terrain masking, in approach to target.

Escort , CAP, OCA, DCA, HIVAL CAP by NATO to enable anti-submarine aircraft to hunt Russian subs and surface combatants, without threat of RuF. Prevent resupply or deployment of Russian ground forces into NATO territory.

RuF's mission would be to prevent NATO from doing the above mission. So there is plenty of opportunity for carrier based aviation, land based aviation, amphibious warfare landings.

This theater would be heaven from Viggen people. All those Fjords on Greenlan's eastern coast, Viggen was specifically designed for anti-surface, anti-landing strikes in such confined environment.

What a great , but difficult theater that would be.

Or just spawn in the middle of the sea?

Good idea. How about we act as the invading force?? We have carriers set up just off the coast with harriers for attack followed by Choppers transporting troops. Only wish we had landing craft that could move in MP.

I have suggested this 2-3 years ago with Matt. I suggested to cobra the same thing last year both being a 1000 nm by 1000nm map open ocean.. Easy to make in my opinion..

This would be a great adition and much needed. IMO best option is open sea with a tiny piece of land at the top of the map or to the sides, not in the middle of the sea like an isolated island. Place there only 1 basic airbase and a small town nearby without any specific names, just generic names editable by mission editors; so you can turn that into some cape/peninsula at Islas Malvinas (Argentina); Iceland; Norway; etc.

Something like these (and sorrounded by 1000nm of ocean)

Or just cut the Gelendzhik area (airbase+town+bay and port+mountains) and put it on the top/left/right/bottom margin of an oceanic 1000x1000 map :thumbup:

And BTW, sorry for my ignorance regarding this...isn't this easy to make for a good modder? Or are there any issues with map making like licence or permission by ED?.

Or just spawn in the middle of the sea?

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

This would be a great adition and much needed. IMO best option is open sea with a tiny piece of land at the top of the map or to the sides, not in the middle of the sea like an isolated island. Place there only 1 basic airbase and a small town nearby without any specific names, just generic names editable by mission editors; so you can turn that into some cape/peninsula at Islas Malvinas (Argentina); Iceland; Norway; etc.

 

Something like these (and sorrounded by 1000nm of ocean)

 

 

 

 

Or just cut the Gelendzhik area (airbase+town+bay and port+mountains) and put it on the top/left/right/bottom margin of an oceanic 1000x1000 map

 

And BTW, sorry for my ignorance regarding this...isn't this easy to make for a good modder? Or are there any issues with map making like licence or permission by ED?.

Like such map in most games editors is basically a 10 min work. (Launch, new, set flat terrain, set size, set water level, export).

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Chaps,

Very much hoping that this will lead to two or more maps, let me explain.

A simple open water with NOTHING on it but sea should in theory be dead easy to build and with nothing on it, would hopefully be MASSIVE. I appreciate that this is not much use for many aircraft, however I'm hoping that it would be so simple that ED will simply give it to us for free.

Follow on maps with islands, yes, I'd like that too, and there's a host of great options, including those mentioned. I like all of the ideas mentioned. The key issue is scope. If for example, someone suggests the Falklands. Well that's actually not that small, and do you then need to include Argentina? The biggest point being one of scope creep. One person suggests a simple idea, then others add to it with genuinely good ideas that result in much scope creep and a BIG increase in development time and therefore cost.

So can we please separate the (hopefully) very simple open water and then a variety of sea/island combos. BTW, other ideas include midway, okinawa, honolulu etc.