Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Alpenwolf]

Hi Alpenwolf,

 

 

Any chance you can have ships to attack on more missions?

One thing I really love with the viggen is doing the anti-maritime runs. With all that water off to the west, the Caucasus map is pefect for long range maritime hunting. . . . .

The next two missions will feature exactly that.

Don't worry, Viggen pilots are not forgotten here.

[philstyle]

Hi gfolks,

 

 

Any thoughts on how mission design can be used to encourge more medium-high altitude flying on cold war?

 

 

As we all know, success (at least in Air 2 Air) requires mostlly flying in the weeds. Part of this has to do with the difficulties in spotting contacts in DCS, however I am of the opinion that other factors compound this, i.e.

 

1. There is nothing, except for 1 x AWACS per side, to engage with at high altitude. There's no mission-imperative to be up there.

 

2. When airfields are only 100km or so apart, AND there's only 1 airfield to spanw from in a mission, there's little point climbing up to 8km or so, because it just un-necessarily extends time-to-combat

 

3. SAM sites are extememly powerful in an environment where SEAD operations are not really catered for, AND furthermore, the short range between bases increases the combat area that is covered by SAMS at altitudes over a couple of thousand feet, staing low enables getting in close

 

4. Most of the terrain isn't hostile to low flying aircraft. There's no-one shooting back up for the most part.

 

We've had similar problems in the WW2 servers. But there are ways of incentivising people to climb up to altitudes that have been tried, and proven, to work. It remains to be seen if DCS can handle these measures without falling over on it's A**e though I think.

[Knock-Knock]

I guess randomly positioned IR launchers and man pads would force us up, at least for the A2A. For strikers etc, Id still stay down in the mud, but since I wouldnt have to climb now and then and circle the same spot/area, as in A2A combat, the chance of IR launchers tracking and shooting, is limited.

[Nirvi]

I'd love to have some more high-alt ops!

In my opinion, there are 2 possibilities to get more players to at least medium altitude:

 

1. Bomber escorts/intercepts - If there are continuous AI raids, you can always fly up there to intercept/escort.

 

2. Place lots and lots of AAA and MANPADS between the bases. You should never feel save when flying below 5k.

[philstyle]

I'd love to have some more high-alt ops!

In my opinion, there are 2 possibilities to get more players to at least medium altitude:

1. Bomber escorts/intercepts - If there are continuous AI raids, you can always fly up there to intercept/escort.

2. Place lots and lots of AAA and MANPADS between the bases. You should never feel save when flying below 5k.

 

 

I agree with BOTH these two options.

1. Bombers and / or transport/ communications aircraft up at altitude. These would have to be AI. It takes quite a lot of mission maker effort to get this to work though. They have to have sensible flight plans, and you have to be able to either respawns flights when they get shot down, or to have a timetalbe in place that will ensure that there is a possibility that some AI will be operating up there at any time, or at least quite often during a mission. Doing this will also make the AWACS less vulnerable, becasue there will be other AI aircraft confusing the picture, beyond just the single AWACS aircraft we currently have - and it's really obvious when you get a bogey dope directing you to the enemy AWACS.

 

2. Short range anti-air is also really helpful. It worls in WW2 also. You pepper it around the small towns, next to bridges and other infrasructure around the map. None of these units show as "mission targets". They also don't give off big RWR signals which might normally make them SEAD targets. They're just there to discourage people from flying at low altitude.

The main problem here is over-populating the mission and making it less playable (stutters, load time etc). However, on Storm of War, we've used a couple of hundred flak guns scattered around like this and mutltiple B17 formations (8 to 10 aircraft) without casuing problems so far.

 

 

I would also add a third:

3. More spawn bases . . this goes for almost all servers though. Having everyone operate from a single field sets up a very narrow combat area. The narrow geographic spread forces eveyone lower and lower and combats always descend, and new aircraft keep piling in soon after takeoff.

Edited April 26, 2019 by philstyle

[Alpenwolf]

Having hundreds of AAA's and MANPAD's spread out here and there just to get players to fly higher isn't really realistic and that bothers me a lot. However, I could (and I will) add AAA's and IR SAM's here and there, but in limited numbers - not insane high numbers. So this is something I can do. Whether I'm going to add this feature to new missions only or also update older missions, I will certainly have to look closer into this and see how it fits in, especially in existing scenarios of older missions.

 

 

There are 3 missions; Open Range, Swedish Delivery and Catch Me If You Can, that have 2, 4 and 1 bomber/s included. Again, having a big load of bombers flying around and constantly respawning just to get players to fly higher isn't really incentive to me. In the three missions mentioned above, a coalition (Blue in all three missions actually) has to complete a certain objective (e.g. destroying SAM sites) to allow B-52's to move in. That's a scenario that makes sense to me. In the mission Swedish Delivery, where Red has 4 SAM sites, Viggen pilots face the challenge of having to take out all four to allow 4 B-52's to move in and bombard Maykop's airbase (Red base). I was online once when Blue managed to do this and we had MiG's taking to the sky trying to intercept the bombers, while F-5's were trying to prevent that from happening. A cascade of objectives like this builds up a nice scenario with bombers carrying out some carpet bombing missions as the highlight of the battle gives you the feeling of having accomplished a mission, rather than being forced to fly in a certain way without making any sense.

 

 

I do understand you guys and fully get your message. As much as I like and appreciate other servers and the hard work behind it all, but some of them (especially servers with a number of missions being part of a permanent rotation) don't really have a variety of storylines. almost all missions are the same, but different locatins and airbases each time. I'm not bashing my fellow admins here, only highlighting the differences in the missions we offer. And I do fly on other servers as well. And also servers as the servers mentioned above. However, I prefer for the most part the type of missions I have, which is why I design them like that. Still, I'm always listening and trying to implement your ideas, and I've done that multiple times in many missions. However, I'll never be able to please you all, so that's certainly not my goal.

 

 

Share your thought any time, folks, and thanks for your continuous feedback. Really helps me a lot to improve things :thumbup:

[Knock-Knock]

You dont need 100 active. Maybe need 100 placed, but you only randomly spawn (on mission start) say 20.

Pilots wont know where they are, but will know they can be down there somewhere. Risk it or go high.

[xvii-Dietrich]

However, I could (and I will) add AAA's and IR SAM's here and there, but in limited numbers - not insane high numbers.

 

Fast aircraft (e.g. F-5E, Mig21) tend not to be affected so much by AAA, which simple cannot track them quickly enough to pose a threat.

 

On the other hand, the slower light attack aircraft (C-101 and L-39) will get chewed up by the AAA, and they do not carry countermeasures against the SAMs. Increased air-defence might also be a deterrent to the helicopters.

 

I'm not saying this is necessarily good or bad, but adding more air defence might well change the types of aircraft used in the missions.

[Carl_infar]

Fast aircraft (e.g. F-5E, Mig21) tend not to be affected so much by AAA, which simple cannot track them quickly enough to pose a threat.

 

On the other hand, the slower light attack aircraft (C-101 and L-39) will get chewed up by the AAA, and they do not carry countermeasures against the SAMs. Increased air-defence might also be a deterrent to the helicopters.

 

I'm not saying this is necessarily good or bad, but adding more air defence might well change the types of aircraft used in the missions.

 

+1

 

Anyway during the cold war due to the threat of the SAMs, the fight was taken to low alt. Also specialized planes like tornado, viggen etc were introduced for low level attack. So there's nothing wrong with low level flying...

[Kang]

In most missions utility helicopters are available which, in theory, can set up air defences. I tried that a couple of times.

[Alpenwolf]

Good feedback from you guys on spreading out AAA's and IR SAM's.

 

Helicopters and Planes like the L-39 or the C-101 wouldn't appreciate the change, I agree. Which is why I said I'll need to look closer into this before doing it. Obviously not all missions will be affected, simply because some mission scenarios wouldn't allow that.

 

I agree with the post above this one. Utility helicopters have the option in some missions to deploy air defences. My favourites for this type of tasking are Phone Booth and Ossetia. Especially in Ossetia where Red are the defenders and you can deploy SAM sites as well. Had fun about 3-4 weeks ago flying on Ossetia with another Mi-8 pilot setting up KUB sites and AAA's.

[xvii-Dietrich]

Helicopters and Planes like the L-39 or the C-101 wouldn't appreciate the change, I agree. Which is why I said I'll need to look closer into this before doing it. Obviously not all missions will be affected, simply because some mission scenarios wouldn't allow that.

 

 

Some missions don't have any helicopters or light attack aircraft at all (e.g. "Supervision"). If that is the case, then perhaps only those types of missions could be AAA/SAM strengthened, leaving the other missions open to flying in the weeds.

[Alpenwolf]

The mission Catch Me If You Can has been updated:

 

- Upon spawning, pilots will be informed of the current situation.

- The B-52's waypoints have been optimised.

- The SAM SA-2 battery has been reinforced.

 

Note:

The briefing message popping up on your screen upon spawning is no way replacing the actual briefing text that you should read to understand the whole situation prior to take off.

[ace.man]

[TheGrizz]

What a most excellent movie...very well done

[Tretton]

What a coinsidence...

Just a few days before you made this video, I flew a Viggen with white paint scheme, two ARAK pods under the wings and four Rb-24’s, making a steep climb in afterburner over the target airfield on the mission ”Phone Booth” and got shot down by an Su-25 that took my left wing off. And then he kept pestering me avery time I took off and went over there... just like the Viggen in this propaganda clip.

 

But thing is, I distinctly remember eventually blowing the Su-25 to pieces so clearly this isn’t that perticular interaction. ;-)

[Alpenwolf]

...

Great stuff! Great video!

[_Firefly]

What a coinsidence...

Just a few days before you made this video, I flew a Viggen with white paint scheme, two ARAK pods under the wings and four Rb-24’s, making a steep climb in afterburner over the target airfield on the mission ”Phone Booth” and got shot down by an Su-25 that took my left wing off. And then he kept pestering me avery time I took off and went over there... just like the Viggen in this propaganda clip.

 

But thing is, I distinctly remember eventually blowing the Su-25 to pieces so clearly this isn’t that perticular interaction. ;-)

 

Looks like OldBoots is up to his usual tricks... Today I saw him get 5 kills in one session while flying the Frogfoot! :joystick:

 

@Alpenwolf, having tested SRS several times today I'm completely on board with the idea of enforcing it. The immersion it provides is immeasurable. So much fun to fly this way, even if I didn't get many kills! Many thanks to Godfather for excellent GCI work. :)

[ace.man]

Why does the Su-25 not have air-to-air weapons (2 * R-60M)?

I apologize for my english (google translate).

[Alpenwolf]

Why does the Su-25 not have air-to-air weapons (2 * R-60M)?

I apologize for my english (google translate).

Because the MiG-21's would be able to operate these missiles too. And I'd rather have rear-aspect missiles only for the MiG-21's and F-5's. If I could enable the R-60M's for the Froggy's only, then tell me how, please, I would love to.

[Kang]

Since they share the same missile that's tricky. Best I could think of would be to separate them, which would still allow MiG-21s to get them, but they'd have to ferry to another base first. Hardly optimal.

[Alpenwolf]

Since they share the same missile that's tricky. Best I could think of would be to separate them, which would still allow MiG-21s to get them, but they'd have to ferry to another base first. Hardly optimal.

Not possible for all missions.

[Alpenwolf]

Server's offline for maintenance and necessary rebooting reasons. Could take some hours...

[Alpenwolf]

Updating complete. Server's back up.

[SwedishWaffle]

I don't think the server's back up.