Jump to content

Cold War "warrior" and a request for a campaign


Cunning_Fox

Recommended Posts

On a side note that missions in the campaign are broken and win for the most part is unachievable (as most triggers are illogical and broken), the SU-25 is used as a "kamikaze dive bomber" (like it was misused in Angolan war, except the kamikaze part), the resources in the mission are not used to their full extent (map is filled with useless flights and assets that amount to nothing) and the fact that it takes a painfully long amount of time to fly to the mission frontline just to be destroyed by ridiculous amounts of AA, the cold war "warrior" campaign is the only one currently available for SU-25A.

 

Seeing as the aircraft has a long history of military service, it would be nice to have an actually flyable campaign for it. ED made several for A-10s and KA-50s, whilst most other flyable aircraft that were around for ages are just "sitting in the hangars", even the FC3 ones. The campaigns are 2004-ish, with little to no changes. I remember some of them from Lock-On, way back.

 

I think ED is oughta make a proper, playable, flyable, FREE campaign(s) for most of the aircraft they released so far. Especially for a legend like SU-25.


Edited by Cunning_Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/user/4023446/search?query=cold+war+warrior

 

No doubt it's a tough campaign, but all the missions are possible to complete.

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's break it down...

 

On a side note that missions in the campaign are broken and win for the most part is unachievable (as most triggers are illogical and broken)

 

I've finished about half of the campaign (before DCS broke my save file...) and I've had no trouble with the triggers or missions not completing. The triggers are in fact pretty liberal - no need to completely wreck the target group. As long as I bloodied them a bit, it was mission accomplished.

 

the SU-25 is used as a "kamikaze dive bomber" (like it was misused in Angolan war, except the kamikaze part)

 

How would you prefer that it was used in a total war scenario against an enemy of more or less similar strength?

 

the resources in the mission are not used to their full extent (map is filled with useless flights and assets that amount to nothing)

 

Besides adding to the immersion and realism of - again - a total war scenario, those unit serve an important purpose. They force you to actually do some thinking and planning before you take off. Otherwise you're going to shoot at something you're not supposed to shoot at, or blunder over a Gepard.

 

and the fact that it takes a painfully long amount of time to fly to the mission frontline

 

It's realistic, you don't operate out of airfields in range of artillery.

 

just to be destroyed by ridiculous amounts of AA

 

You (probably) won't be destroyed by ridiculous amounts of AA if you:

a) plan your route, including especially your altitude profile, ingress, attack, egress;

b) drop everything in one go and get out of there, don't loiter and do extra passes;

c) coordinate to arrive with the rest of the strike package... so the enemy has something else to shoot at.

 

I initially had problems with this campaign and I was frustrated by it the way you are. Then I changed my approach, put more effort into planning and preparation and it turned out to be quite doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've finished about half of the campaign (before DCS broke my save file...) and I've had no trouble with the triggers or missions not completing. The triggers are in fact pretty liberal - no need to completely wreck the target group. As long as I bloodied them a bit, it was mission accomplished.

 

When I get my hydraulics busted by one of the Gepard's 35mm, I can't make it far enough to land at Sochi, so I end up in Krasnodar or similar place "over the hump". I finish the mission - but there is no success. Another time I am flying after tearing a column up with NAR and quit half way through as my plane is struggling with two flaming engines, thinking I need to restart, but the game progresses.

 

 

How would you prefer that it was used in a total war scenario against an enemy of more or less similar strength?

 

Like it's meant to be used - a troop support choice, not a frontline bomber like Tu-22M3 is. That's their job. Remeber 08-08-08? Did you see Su-25s Charge over the border and wild-weasel the enemy? What about Afghanistan? Chechnya? The only time it was used like this is against Angola when they tried to drop FABs from 5000 meters to hit the 32nd in the bush and then quickly turned and ran - whether they hit the target or not.

 

 

Besides adding to the immersion and realism of - again - a total war scenario, those unit serve an important purpose. They force you to actually do some thinking and planning before you take off. Otherwise you're going to shoot at something you're not supposed to shoot at, or blunder over a Gepard.

 

Whilst I myself am being a little hypocritical here as I add a lot of "background noise" to my missions to bring immersion, here it feels very poorly done with some units having 20 or more waypoints (cluttering up the comms with acknowledgements), the unit types aren't used in the right way as they fly too low for an interceptor and get mixed up with the ground attack flights, the numbers of units in flights do not correspond to what realistically would happen. You see four MiGs in several "Hunter" groups, but PVO never flew in anything more than a pair (even in total war scenario as that is unnecessary and creates more problems for the unit due to complexity). I would think that in a total war, an ongoing battle would be more realistic - specific packages flying to and from the battlefield, destroying the AA before the arrival of the Ground Attack planes. Not a "glorious charge" across the frontline, this is not the Russian way despite the stereotypes.

 

 

It's realistic, you don't operate out of airfields in range of artillery.

 

Sure, yeah. You've got Beslan and Mineralniye Vody. You've got plenty of places there. Why not, just out of design logic, put the advancing units a little further into the map? Not towards it's edge where scenery starts to disappear. Besides in Chechnya Su-25s operated quite close to the combat zone (not that Chechens had much of an artillery).

 

You (probably) won't be destroyed by ridiculous amounts of AA if you:

a) plan your route, including especially your altitude profile, ingress, attack, egress;

b) drop everything in one go and get out of there, don't loiter and do extra passes;

c) coordinate to arrive with the rest of the strike package... so the enemy has something else to shoot at.

 

This is what I do all the time (it's not the first year I'm flying sims you know, and I'm not bad at them seeing as how I was in an IL-2 clan so I know about these things), but, like I've said earlier - this isn't what Su-25A is designed for. It feels wrong to use it in this way. The mission design is just one big "charge" with no forethought and no afterthought. It is one of the worst campaigns that I've ever played in any game, let alone sims. This isn't supposed to be a WW2 movie, it isn't supposed to be Stalingrad through the prism of Hollywood. And if the designer goes for showmanship - it fails too. It goes into the uncanny valley of too realistic to be a light-hearted arcadey type mission and too wacky to be taken seriously by anyone with at least basic knowledge of how Airforce assets are used IRL.

 

I initially had problems with this campaign and I was frustrated by it the way you are. Then I changed my approach, put more effort into planning and preparation and it turned out to be quite doable.

 

Not about approach, see above.

 

Offtopic: I'm going to diverge here and speak purely from the perspective of the campaign premise itself. I know the person had the aim of making a playable campaign for a 1980's plane on a Caucasus map, so naturally - WW3. However, the NATO would have been nuked before anything this radical would have happened (a limited amount of tactical nukes would have been used, by either side, something along the lines of 5-10 kiloton). They (Mbot, was it?) could have just gone the easier way and create something along the lines of "on-going local conflict, civil war in Georgia after it's 1986s revolution and separation from USSR, as it gets help from NATO". That would have been more believable and easier. There could have been sea-combat, with US carriers in the Black Sea (offshore from the immediate combat zone, like they were located in Korean/Vietnam war). That way you don't have to use the edge of the map, you can build up the difficulty gradually as "Georgian rebels receive better western equipment as the war progresses" and the scenario itself would be fairly belivable rather than "NATO makes it to Krasnodar without Berlin being a giant irradiated hole".


Edited by Cunning_Fox
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I wanted to make it clear that my advice to do your planning before each mission etc. wasn't aimed to offend or devalue your skills and experience. I was genuinely hoping it might be helpful as I didn't know what your flight sim "career" was.

 

Like it's meant to be used - a troop support choice, not a frontline bomber like Tu-22M3 is. That's their job. Remeber 08-08-08? Did you see Su-25s Charge over the border and wild-weasel the enemy?

 

I checked and there is not a single mission in the entire campaign where it's your job to conduct SEAD. Most of the missions are of battlefield air interdiction type (deep air support, tactical air interdiction, call it what you will), that is destroying enemy ground assets near the front line, but not in direct contact with friendly forces. You get two CAS missions, one strike against a field command post and one strike on a bridge. All of the missions are tactical in nature and I fail to see how are they unsuited for the Su-25.

 

Should there be more CAS? I'm not so sure. The amount of NATO air defense and the fact that the airspace is contested means that for every CAS flight you need plenty of escorts. To perform them effectively and safely, you need trained forward air controllers on the ground, reliable, unjammed C3 - in other words, stuff a retreating Soviet Army of the late 80s might not have had.

 

Real life plausibility aside, we also have the gameplay aspect... there is no Russian version of the JTAC that came with the A-10C (which is a damn shame and ED should totally add that). Every close air support mission would have to be carefully scripted and that means - probably more bugs.

 

What about Afghanistan? Chechnya? The only time it was used like this is against Angola when they tried to drop FABs from 5000 meters to hit the 32nd in the bush and then quickly turned and ran - whether they hit the target or not.

 

Afghanistan and Chechnya were asymmetric wars where the Soviet/Russian VVS enjoyed total air superiority and where the AA of the guerrillas was extremely limited. Those could be considered the "ideal war" for a plane like the Su-25, where its strengths could be used fully. But you do not always fight an ideal war.

 

In South Ossetia the Russians had to deal with more deadly air defenses - and suffered losses accordingly. AFAIK the Su-25s did most of the fighting, including bombing the Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing plant. The Russian Army relatively early on gained the initiative on the ground. It also had overwhelming superiority in the air. And still the Frogfoots weren't used solely for "ideal" CAS work, as the attack on the aircraft plant shows.

 

In our campaign scenario (realism of the scenario itself aside), where the Soviet Army is fighting a delaying action and desperately trying to reorganize and gain initiative, do you think Su-25s would have been kept on the ground, waiting for the perfect opportunity? I don't think the Soviet commanders would have the resources to let the Frogfoots sit this one out.

 

Whilst I myself am being a little hypocritical here as I add a lot of "background noise" to my missions to bring immersion, here it feels very poorly done with some units having 20 or more waypoints (cluttering up the comms with acknowledgements), the unit types aren't used in the right way as they fly too low for an interceptor and get mixed up with the ground attack flights, the numbers of units in flights do not correspond to what realistically would happen.

 

Can't really argue with the altitude argument. The fighters are too low. I can sort of see the "Hollywood appeal" - thanks to that in one of the missions I accidentally flew straight into a dogfight and shot down a Phantom - but from a realism perspective, the fighters should be flying higher.

 

You see four MiGs in several "Hunter" groups, but PVO never flew in anything more than a pair (even in total war scenario as that is unnecessary and creates more problems for the unit due to complexity).

 

IIRC the planes that escort you are usually either MiG-23MLDs or MiG-29s, which suggests they are VVS not PVO planes, if that matters. I never heard the PVO never flew 4 ships, could you elaborate why, share your sources? The USAF certainly did in the Gulf War.

 

I would think that in a total war, an ongoing battle would be more realistic - specific packages flying to and from the battlefield, destroying the AA before the arrival of the Ground Attack planes. Not a "glorious charge" across the frontline, this is not the Russian way despite the stereotypes.

 

Heh, I usually "cheated" a bit by waiting at the rendezvous waypoint a minute or two longer than the briefing told me so that the Escorts and SEADs would go first and clear the way.

 

Offtopic: I'm going to diverge here and speak purely from the perspective of the campaign premise itself. I know the person had the aim of making a playable campaign for a 1980's plane on a Caucasus map, so naturally - WW3. However, the NATO would have been nuked before anything this radical would have happened (a limited amount of tactical nukes would have been used, by either side, something along the lines of 5-10 kiloton). They (Mbot, was it?) could have just gone the easier way and create something along the lines of "on-going local conflict, civil war in Georgia after it's 1986s revolution and separation from USSR, as it gets help from NATO". That would have been more believable and easier. There could have been sea-combat, with US carriers in the Black Sea (offshore from the immediate combat zone, like they were located in Korean/Vietnam war). That way you don't have to use the edge of the map, you can build up the difficulty gradually as "Georgian rebels receive better western equipment as the war progresses" and the scenario itself would be fairly belivable rather than "NATO makes it to Krasnodar without Berlin being a giant irradiated hole".

 

You have a point, but at the same time - in a "what if" scenario there's by definition always some suspension of disbelief. It's a question of what to you personally is plausible and what is too much fantasy. Here I can see why the author decided to keep nukes out of the equation. And I'm willing to play along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

Offtopic: I'm going to diverge here and speak purely from the perspective of the campaign premise itself. I know the person had the aim of making a playable campaign for a 1980's plane on a Caucasus map, so naturally - WW3. However, the NATO would have been nuked before anything this radical would have happened (a limited amount of tactical nukes would have been used, by either side, something along the lines of 5-10 kiloton). They (Mbot, was it?) could have just gone the easier way and create something along the lines of "on-going local conflict, civil war in Georgia after it's 1986s revolution and separation from USSR, as it gets help from NATO". That would have been more believable and easier. There could have been sea-combat, with US carriers in the Black Sea (offshore from the immediate combat zone, like they were located in Korean/Vietnam war). That way you don't have to use the edge of the map, you can build up the difficulty gradually as "Georgian rebels receive better western equipment as the war progresses" and the scenario itself would be fairly belivable rather than "NATO makes it to Krasnodar without Berlin being a giant irradiated hole".

 

Wow... Speaking about campaign improbability... WOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

couldn't pass the first mission. killed some of the column but my fuel ran out, in the other attempts i got killed

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missions, at least the initial ones, are pretty easy once you get in the right frame of mind - plan your approach, get there, shoot/drop everything in one go, and get out. Don't try to kill every vehicle in the group you're tasked to attack and feel free to change your loadout to something more appropriate. Also I found that flying in at 3000m and doing a diving attack works better than actually flying the low approach that the waypoints tell you to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a relatively new sim pilot I find the campaign rather difficult (still using labels) there's really a lot going on but that's only logical since it's a big war. My only complaint is that 90% of the mission is flying from the airport to the war zone and back which is pretty boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
Sorry to resurrect an old thread - in current version of 1.5.7 this campaign is broken for me, mission loads and when I press fly on the briefing window DCS freezes.

 

Just tried it, and it starts the first mission just fine ... perhaps you have a user Mod causing the problem, may I suggest to disable all user mods, then perform a dcs_updater cleanup and repair, and try again.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Just tried it, and it starts the first mission just fine ... perhaps you have a user Mod causing the problem, may I suggest to disable all user mods, then perform a dcs_updater cleanup and repair, and try again.

 

Correct - the problem was with one of the "mods" that require export - LotATC, UniversRadio, SimpleRadio, or Tacview... Strange, just that one campaign has problems with the export.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I am currently flying the campaign with the SU25T. Mission 1 and 2 are basically the same. Fly 200km and strike on a convoy.

You have in both missions a full strike package of 6+ SU25A but the problem is that this planes do not attack anything in the area. Only a short flypass and then home.

 

Is this intended? If not is the campaign broken, due to its age?

 

I did already try to modify the AI SU25A strike package so that they get int o the fight. Tried to set them so search in the area and attack. But no change. AIs fly home without any impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said I would write it off and wasn't going to try it?

 

That's a far cry from recommending someone try it - which I wouldn't do unless I knew for a fact it was okay. Deleted my post anyway, before I saw yours, as it's of no relevance to the post reopening this thread.

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One person reporting something as broken 5 months ago, two weeks after the 2.5 release doesn't necessarily mean there are still issues. MadDogIC has been hard at work updating all the stock campaigns. Try it before you write it off.

 

 

Cold war warrior, isn't on my list of repairs and I haven't had anything to do with it, not to say that others aren't looking into issues.

 

 

Regards, Ian.

Asus p877v-pro, Intel I7 3770k 4.2ghz, 32gb Ripjaw X ram, Nvidia RTX-2070 Super, Samsung 32" TV, Saitek x52 pro Joystick and Combat rudder pedals, TrackIR 5, Win8.1 x64 with SSD and SSHD protected by (Avast AV).

 

DCS Tech Support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revanche also isn't an official campaign (I think it was an FC1 or 2 campaign which was dropped, but then updated by Winz to FC3) - but maybe he will have another look - who knows.

 

Would do it myself if I knew what I was doing.

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...