Cold War 1947 - 1991

Harrier tanker is anything with a drogue basket instead of the boom style.

Using up some footage from this server over the pas few weeks.

I'll do it tomorrow. Away for work tonight.

Thank You very much

Using up some footage from this server over the pas few weeks.

 

Can you destroy the water stations with rocktets only?! I mean, I tired that in the Ka-50 and fired all 40 S-8 rockets at one stations and nothing happened! What type of rockets does the Viggen carry?

Can you destroy the water stations with rocktets only?! I mean, I tired that in the Ka-50 and fired all 40 S-8 rockets at one stations and nothing happened! What type of rockets does the Viggen carry?

Only some of the assets at the water stations can be destroyed by the rockets, not all of them.

If you kill an SA-6 do they reappear after a while?

If you kill an SA-6 do they reappear after a while?

No.

I have one small request. Would it be possible to allow the L-39Z to remove the gun camera.

looks like there is no option for disabling the gun camera for the L-39ZA. Am I overlooking something here?

looks like there is no option for disabling the gun camera for the L-39ZA. Am I overlooking something here?

Hi. Unfortunately I know nothing about the mission builder.

For the plane its in the options / special / L39/ gun camera / dismounted.

Hi. Unfortunately I know nothing about the mission builder.

 

For the plane its in the options / special / L39/ gun camera / dismounted.

I don't have the L-39ZA installed in the remote computer for the server. Only DCS. If that's the only option, then I'm afraid I can't change that.

In all the missions I have there are always different target areas at which players can test their air to ground skills. However, when I check out the score table every time I'm monitoring the server, I rarely see someone with a good number of scored ground kills. Even when 15, 20 or 30 players are online, you might then find one or two players at the most with maybe 1-5 ground kills while the rest is mainly focusing on dogfighting. And with a total of 12 missions, I think there is a good variety of ground targets with yet a good variety of scenarios. Which makes me almost be sure that the average DCS player is simply more interested in aerial fights than firing rockets or dropping bombs.

Maybe I should change something? Maybe put the target areas far away from battle so that strikers feel safe? But then it wouldn't make sense if assits are scattered here and there. You wouldn't have a storyline to the missions.

I'm working on a mission where only aerial battles are the objective. For both airplanes and helicopters. We'll see how that plays out.

In all the missions I have there are always different target areas at which players can test their air to ground skills. However, when I check out the score table every time I'm monitoring the server, I rarely see someone with a good number of scored ground kills. .

Here's my experience from the Viggen.

It takes about 1.5 hours to get two complete sorties done in the Viggen. I normally have only 2 hours free to fly at a time, so 2 sorties is a good starting point.

Carpet/ cluster bombing is not really effective because

1. the target objects tend not to be closely clustered together, and

2. In DCS, runways can't be taken out by bombing

3. Using pre-programmed targets is not that viable either, becasue there is no way to know on cold war server if the target you are going to has already been destroxed by somone else. If you use pre-programmed launch weapons you might get near the target and relase your wepaons only to find out that the target has already been destroyed. Alternatively, the maount of time and oeffrto require to re-route to another taget, recon it and set up for an atatck becomes prhibitie. So it's better to just take a more flexible weapon that can be directed to a target of opportunity more easily.

So taking flexible precision weapons (RB75), or forward firing rockets which can be aimed more precisely than bombs is really the only viable option IMO.

I typically take either 2xRB 75, or two rocket pods in the Viggen. I still need to take some air-to-air missles (just incase) and you don't want to do more than two passes in the viggen on a target, ideally just ONE pass - this limits the number of ground objects you an focus on.

With the loadsouts I use, I can really only expect to destroy 2 objects per sortie, maybe 4 if I get two complete passes in AND you have enough weapons. So, in 2 hours of flying, if everything goes perfectly, I can expect to get from 4 to 8 ground objects destroyed.

Ships are similar, 2xRb15F can only take out two ships, even if you have a perfect day and they both make it to target.

This might explain why large numbers of ground "kills" per player is low-ish. It's not that players don't want to do ground attack, its just that getting large numbers of "kills" in short time is not really feasible.

If there were targets which had, say, 50 or so trucks parked in rows alongside a railway station, then I could get 20 or so objects with bombs, in one pass.

It's also a shame that the base-map-buildings can't be counted either. There are so many nice fuel-storage areas, esepcially at the main ports, which would be wonderful to attack. . .

I heard that having area-targets was possible with certain scripts (i.e. designating an entire port area, or airfield as a target).. but I don't know exactly how this would be implemented.

I know the Viggen is very limited, philstyle. Not to be really counted as a striker. You can't carry that much. The Harrier carries maybe a bit more, but still not that much either. The Froggies and the A-10A however should be able to do that. Not many players fly the A-10A, I get it. But I wonder why the Froggy isn't that popular as it should be. So maybe the lack for a formidable striker/fighter bomber is the issue as well? Say, like the F-4, F-105, Su-17 or maybe Su-24?

The other thing is that players tend to fly solo rather than team up with others. That's the actual issue, I think. If you'd fly with another Viggen or more then surely things will be different and more exciting to fly. Besides, lingering over a target area for a while and take out everything with many rockets' and bombs' runs isn't really realistic. Especially with enemy bandits lurking around. Which is why I don't approve of hiding the target areas far away from battle for strikers to feel safer.

no it is allright to have the target areas in the way of the aerial battle routes.

as phil said, it would be great to have the targets a bit more concentrated.

also it would be great to have some sort of intel first. not on every mission there is a picture of all the targets which are there to destroy.

in reality you wouldn't even dare to fly into battle without knowing what awaits you there.

on the red side i don't like to fly the frog, since it is a non-clickable flyer.

therefore i use the l39za, which is limited in its hardpoints as you know ... so on the l39 i use the rockets + maybe missiles (if there is heavy traffic above me)

if i might find targets which are armoured then the rockets won't be sufficient. so in my eyes it would be great to have some targets for the l39 crowd (as there might be one maybe??)

however i don't critizise here, i just want to give some ideas...

... and viggen is not too limited - viggen is love, viggen is life! :D

I don't have the L-39ZA installed in the remote computer for the server. Only DCS. If that's the only option, then I'm afraid I can't change that.

Thanks anyway for Your efforts.

also it would be great to have some sort of intel first. not on every mission there is a picture of all the targets which are there to destroy.

in reality you wouldn't even dare to fly into battle without knowing what awaits you there.

It's a LOT of work for mission makers to take screenshots and make maps etc. of the targets - making sure they are legible in the game and also making sure they are the right size, etc. for DCS. I don't blame people for not providing them, even though you are right, they would be a necessity for most modern (i.e. post WW2) missions espeically when attacking a known facility. For the 10 lake targets in "mountain whispers" alone, I estimate 5 hours of work just to provide the full set of target photos in the briefing.

However, due to the way DCS works, you can actually get the exact location and layout for any target by opening the mission file that gets downloaded to your computer when you play any online mission. You can source your own target photos etc this way too and save them to another device, or your kneeboard etc... You can get exact co-ordinates for navigation and attack points this way too. It's just a bit time consuming for the player.

On the down-side this effectively makes it impossible for a mission maker to truly "hide" a target from the players. However, ont he other hand, unless you are running dynamic missions, there's not way to hide a target anyway. Once someone has found it, its location is known.

Could make targets, be it units or static, the only visible items on map. Rest being hidden as it is now. Then you know where the targets are, their altitude (very useful for F-5E bomb drops too for example), their concentration, general layout, and can plan your strikes - like they'd do in real life, based on recon/intel etc.. And you can also see if the target area has been hit. And keep the SAM/AAA hidden too, at least the mobile kind.

This will obviously also become the flypaper for all the fighters, but thats only natural. Protecting high prio assets, or just protecting the strikers.

"in reality you wouldn't even dare to fly into battle without knowing what awaits you there"

 

"however i don't critizise here, i just want to give some ideas"

You're right. Without enough details no striker ever goes in blindly like that. I guess, I've got some work to do then.

Man, criticize all you want. I urge people to do that. How else will I improve the server? I criticize too when I feel it's needed, so now I shouldn't be able to handle criticism myself? So by all means, share your critics :thumbup:

Hi all, I have some thoughts on the air to ground question at hand. I actually really get a kick out of using the F5 in the striker roll and I find that it has an excellent balance against the targets available on the maps in circulation. For example, destroying one lake worth of targets is generally possible before rearming on "mountains cry" (although those "water tower" looking structures are tough to crack). Ditto either the pump station or the road outposts on "Ossetia." The road outposts on "Sail Ahoy" usually take one load each since they have tanks. I can also usually open Gelendzhik on "Five Points" with one to two loadouts. I know that there has been some question about the usefulness of rockets against these targets, but that is all I ever carry and they seem to get it done (not trying to toot my own horn at all and I have plenty of TacView track if anyone is doubtful).

Personally if it were up to me I wouldn't change the locations of the air to ground targets-- I think no matter where they were, the MiGs would be trying to find the F5s heading that way (they are interceptors after all). Honestly a lot of my fun comes from trying to decide whether I have the energy/terrain/time to keep my rockets on and reach the target area or jettison and fight. And frankly, when a MiG makes me jettison ordnance, in my mind I count that as a kill for them, even if I end up shooting that MiG down, because it stopped me from accomplishing my mission.

I also am really not a fan of the idea of swelling the number of targets to increase score for a twofold reason; I don't know how much more performance stress I think the server needs and I really don't personally care about my score; to me, capturing or destroying objectives is the game, even if for a lot of players they don't pay that much attention. Likewise I think beyond marking target "areas" on the F10 map like on "mountains cry" I really wouldn't like to have individual units visible on the F10 map. One of my favorite things about the server is that is makes you actually navigate and use your eyeballs, and most of the maps have a method (like the infantry spawn) that you can use to determine the status of objectives before hopping into your aircraft.

I think what is really at play here is that it is a public server and although great examples or cooperation happen at times, often driven by having a solid GCI, usually the largest functioning element is a 2-4 ship working together but not coordinating with anyone else (as Alpenwolf said). I don't really know how to change that given that Cold War is public server that is not persistent (at least in the way that servers like BF are)- but I don't think that is a problem, I really enjoy it in its current state. Perhaps the only thing I can think of to encourage objective focus would be somehow scripting a large award of points to all the units of one side within a radius when an objective is cleared, but even that would have lots of possible criticism.

It's a LOT of work for mission makers to take screenshots and make maps etc. of the targets - making sure they are legible in the game and also making sure they are the right size, etc. for DCS.

as i said previously, this was no offense and was just an input. ;)

You can source your own target photos etc this way too and save them to another device, or your kneeboard etc...

totally true ... i even thought of doing intel missions with my group and preparing our missions offline before going online onto war... unfortunately we have too little striker pilots :|

Man, criticize all you want. I urge people to do that. How else will I improve the server?

i'd rather share my ideas than criticize another person for the good job he is doing ... so thanks for all the work again and i hope we can improve your server all together! :thumbup:

Having only dogfight missions would be a mistake. The more diversity the better so everyone (chopper pilots, fighter pilots, attack plane pilots) can find something for themselfs.

I think the air to ground is just more difficult (at least for me) , but I plan to find some time and learn how to do it properly in Viggen.

The su25 without clicable cockpit is just too much for the few buttons on my joystic. A su17 would be superb if the heatblur would make it...

I don't really know how to change that given that Cold War is public server that is not persistent (at least in the way that servers like BF are)

I agree, which is exactly why I started a dynamic campaign (check out the third post on the first page of this thread) to "force" players to do some air to ground in order to capture airbases and FARP's. The campaign was online for quite a time and was really fun to fly. Unfortunately, one of the main scripts I use for the dynamic campaign is bugged and doesn't work any more. I've talked to the developer of the script and he said he's got no time to tend to his incredible script. However, he's working on something similar and maybe even better. When that's done, the dynamic campaign will go back online for a week or two until a coalition wins. After that the missions will replace the dynamic campaign for a number of weeks before the dynamic campaign is put back online. That was my original idea.

I agree, which is exactly why I started a dynamic campaign ...

That sounds great, I wasn't able to fly much this year until recently so I missed that mission earlier but I'll be looking forward to it when it returns.

On another topic, am I imagining things or was the SRS "expanded radios" option formally on and now is off?

The reason I ask this is because I am always on SRS and the other night there was a fellow trying to do his first time SRS set up. I managed to get him going on a random frequency since we had lots of back and forth chatter. What makes me raise this question though is that in the recent past I am quite sure I used the SRS overlay with expanded radios in the F5 so myself and another guy could have an "intraflight" freq for our use and still monitor and talk on 251 to the AWACS/GCI/other flights. When I tried to pull up the SRS overlay with this new guy, I didn't have the option to use a second radio. Does anyone else use the expanded radios and have they experienced this?

That sounds great, I wasn't able to fly much this year until recently so I missed that mission earlier but I'll be looking forward to it when it returns.

 

 

On another topic, am I imagining things or was the SRS "expanded radios" option formally on and now is off?

 

The reason I ask this is because I am always on SRS and the other night there was a fellow trying to do his first time SRS set up. I managed to get him going on a random frequency since we had lots of back and forth chatter. What makes me raise this question though is that in the recent past I am quite sure I used the SRS overlay with expanded radios in the F5 so myself and another guy could have an "intraflight" freq for our use and still monitor and talk on 251 to the AWACS/GCI/other flights. When I tried to pull up the SRS overlay with this new guy, I didn't have the option to use a second radio. Does anyone else use the expanded radios and have they experienced this?

The radio expansion option is OFF. No idea why you have that...

Hi,

i bought the F-5 in the last sale. Right now im learning the machine.

Is there still activity on the Cold War Server?

I would like to fly mainly online and be a part of that community :)

But: i still not understand how that thing with simple radio works on the server.