Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Mustang]

Is the server still down? it's not showing up on the multiplayer list, and hasn't for anytime i've been on in the last 2 days

 

See post https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/dcs-world-topics/multiplayer/212160-cold-war-1947-1991?p=7138003#post7138003

 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- Operation Street fight is the first to receive a more detailed briefing with updated and new briefing images for a deeper understanding of the mission. The rest of the missions will follow in time.

- Each coalition is limited to deploying 1 JTAC unit at a time. This is currently implemented in Street fight only, but will be added to all missions.

- I had some scripts changed here and there so it maybe is worth trying if the server will crash or not, although it seems that it's an ED thing rather than a server issue.

 

* Server will be back online within 20-40 minutes with the renewed mission Street Fight - Syria.

[Velosocuba]

I know Syria is now a very appealing map to play around but i would like to bring up the fact that its fairly new and not many people own it. Anyway im ok with not being able to join because of the map as long as the server is running, thank you very much for your work Alpen, its truly sad ED has chosen to make maps a wall instead of a road.

 

[Volator]

Well Hiromachi, when it comes to certain imbalances, and I actually acknowledged that there is one in "Behind enemy lines" if you read carefully, I'd like to quote Alpenwolf himself:

 

Maybe I'm wrong but it does sound like you're pushing for symmetric balance which I'm not in favour of.

 

(...)

 

Isn't it more challenging to try a figure out a way to beat your enemy despite having the disadvantage in regard to a specific role your coalition is unable to fulfill? And in time when new modules arrive that challenge grows and grows and is always adding more obstacles to overcome, right? If that doesn't sound sexy then I don't know what does! Now tell me that's not the fun you're looking for in DCS. I know I am.

 

While Blue has the A-10, the Viggen, sometimes the Harrier and even the F-14 (which can perform strike missions) Red mostly has the Ka-50 and/or the Su-25 only. And by the way, only a few days ago I started adding the Su-25T to some missions, and still Red quite often turned the tide in many missions and won the day or even completely dominated the whole skirmish till the end of the mission. How does that not sound like FUN! And when Red won it... well... it was mostly (here we go again) due to proper teamwork. It always comes down to that, doesn't it?

 

But what happens if both teams have good comms and good teamwork? Well, in that case, I think he who outsmarts the other side and provides better tactics while making less mistakes wins. And we do have some sessions like that sometimes. And those are my FAVOURITE and the goal of this whole server.

 

The answer you, Hiromachi, get is this: You have excellent tank hunters in almost every mission, and if you look at Tacview you can see that the SA-15 (which is a real killer SAM system that can kill fighters and helicopters without a lock or launch warning) is covering Minahk as well. You also have the SA-15 in other missions. That's three advanced systems that outclass everything Blue has in the same mission. I'd say this clearly fits into Alpenwolf's definition of interesting mission design when there is one (1!) single mission where Blue has more better tanks than Red. BTW, do you ever drive tanks instead of flying MiGs? If not, it's nothing for you to worry about. In most missions there is no ground commander at all! That means no side is going to lose or win anything, you folks just go in circles around bullseye for hours.

 

Maybe there's just too much bias on your side to acknowledge all this. That's ok, it's hard to see both sides. I struggle too. Let's leave it that way, Alpenwolf already announced you are going to get an easier "Behind enemy lines". Enjoy it. I will too, even if I think things are a little bit too much in favour of Red here and there.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

I know Syria is now a very appealing map to play around but i would like to bring up the fact that its fairly new and not many people own it. Anyway im ok with not being able to join because of the map as long as the server is running, thank you very much for your work Alpen, its truly sad ED has chosen to make maps a wall instead of a road.

 

I feel you, my man.

The "wall" thing regarding the maps is a good point there, but surely we all agree on paying credit to those who spend quite some time developing something. Be it a map, a module, a campaign, etc. the developers want and deserve money for it. The only question might be though, how much money "should" developers demand for whatever products they produce. And I wrote ("should") because they could and actually can demand whatever they want. It's a never ending dilemma with products and their prices. Not just in DCS as you surely know already.

 

On a side note, I looked at the Caucasus map yesterday trying to find a new spot that I haven't covered so far in any of my missions. I really love the map and I believe it's got more to offer than some maps for sure. Hard to find new spots but maybe it's about time I redesigned the mission Whispers & Whistles and modified a number of things.

Hope you and others will like it when ready.

[Alpenwolf]

... even if I think things are a little bit too much in favour of Red here and there.

 

 

It's really a puzzle to me how you see Red as the favourites in Behind Enemy Lines when they won it once only as I have mentioned that already. And here comes the stats for the mission: Blue wins: 5. Red wins: 1. Draw: 3.

 

The other puzzling part is that you keep focusing your argument on that 1 Tor unit at Minakh when there where no A-10's or Viggens providing CAS as much as east of Hatay anyway. The is along with every Red unit at Minakh are quite often destroyed by advancing Leclerc tanks. CAS is not always a needed asset in combat and this scenario here demonstrates it well. Yes, you could but not necessarily. Not at Minakh.

 

Suppose I'd remove the Tor. What then? Blue is going to win it? Yes, we know that already. I just can't see how that's affecting anything. Don't get me wrong but the way you argue makes question whether you read the other posts in that regard or not. Because I did state that the 1 Tor unit is included in 3 missions only. It's stationary and at the FARP's mostly. You don't need to strike the FARP to finish the job so it's only a struggle if you wish to bring it on your head by striking the FARP.

 

I like that fact that Hiromachi challenged you to name a mission where Red are the obvious favourites as much as Blue are in Behind Enemy Lines. In fact, I thought about it because it sounded interesting to me and I couldn't name one.

 

Here's another example: In Search & Destroy Red tanks at Salman lake (the big lake in the open) are sitting ducks and easily to find because you can't find not one tree or building where they could hide, unlike the much smaller Shahid lake (Blue) where houses and trees are everywhere. The Blue town of Jahrom is way bigger than the Red town of Fasa and that's OK. It is what it is. Towns, airbases, FARP's, lakes, villages, industrial sites, geography, etc. will never be the same for both sides so one will always be the slight or obvious favourite over the other. It's a challenge for the underdog to prove them all wrong and win the battle despite all doubts! Behind Enemy Lines however, seems a bit tough for Red (not impossible) and it's still a new mission more or less so changes are nothing new to any missions so far and quite probable as it always has been.

 

I added the Harrier to Battle Over Sukhumi Unleashed because It was mostly won by Red and not one time by Blue. Then the Tomcats objective for the Viggen which would deny the Red's their Fulcrums if accomplished. Last time I checked, Blue had the Harriers still, the tomcats were flying, the Fulcrums stayed at Maykop because Red failed to protect the ships and Blue won it! So there you go. Changes happen all the time if one side is obviously and only if obviously dominating the other. And still I let it run for a while stressing players out a bit (including myself) trying to live up to the challenge and do the impossible. Why? Because there's nothing more satisfying than overcoming things! However, it's a game at the end of day and we want to enjoy it. So let's not make that stressing part a regular thing and change some features for exactly that reason. A proper teamwork is mostly unavailable, hence the changes once in a while. And as I have also mentioned this: I must always keep the fun part of it all in mind.

 

I feel like I wrote most of the above already which is why I doubted you reading all the responses above. I'd hate to keep running in circles around this subject.

 

Fly safe, mate! :)

[Volator]

I doubted you reading all the responses above. I'd hate to keep running in circles around this subject.

 

Fly safe, mate! :)

 

Yes, I know THAT feeling :lol:

 

Take care buddy, I still like your server.

 

 

[rossmum]

I'd say this clearly fits into Alpenwolf's definition of interesting mission design when there is one (1!) single mission where Blue has more better tanks than Red. BTW, do you ever drive tanks instead of flying MiGs?

 

I do, and I can tell you straight up that the only thing the T-72 has going for it against the Abrams is the ATGM (which you have a very limited number of, and generally requires you to stay still while guiding it). The Abrams can tank multiple hits even to the sides, let alone the front, while the T-72 will generally die to a single hit from the Abrams. Likewise, the Bradley is apparently made of Reaganite instead of aluminium and in an exchange of fire with a BMP (say, if the BMP is out of ATGMs, or if the Bradley surprises it at close range), the Bradley will almost always win - which I am at a loss to understand, other than being yet another example of why ground unit damage models are probably the most neglected aspect of the game.

 

Tors are only present in a small handful of missions. In those, they're either covering airfields/FARPs, or they're on the other side of red's main airfield as a kind of backstop to prevent people doing a wide flank around said airfield and just popping people as they take off.

 

Red undoubtedly has the better helicopter for anti-tank/ground work. You could make an argument we have an advantage in slinging as well (of course I say 'we' because I prefer to play red, but I play both sides depending on team balance) because of the Mi-8's better speed. However, the Su-25T is only available in a handful of missions. In others, we're back to the Su-25, which is inferior in capabilities to the A-10A and in some respects, even the Viggen, while also far more prone to interception than the latter is.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

The server keeps on crashing. 3 times already in the last 2 hours. The server will remain offline until tomorrow's update is included. I can only hope it will have a fix for this trouble.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

*** The briefing in all Syrian missions (Kiryat Shmona, Behind Enemy Lines and Street Fight) has been rewritten with more details added to help understand the situation and objectives better. In addition, more briefing images were added.

*** Once the briefings of all missions are rewritten and optimised, I'll put them all in 1 pdf file (or maybe something similar) and make it available for download on the main page of this thread.

 

 

A few changes were added and will be added to ALL missions in the upcoming days/weeks:

 

- Each coalition will have access to 1 JTAC unit instead of 4. This is due to multiple deployed JTAC units marking enemy ground units with red/blue smoke all over the battlefield. It becomes ridiculous and heavily covered with smoke at some point.

- Unpacking crates for Mi-8's and UH-1's will be possible at a minimum distance of 3 km (≈ 2 miles) from the FARP/airbase. This doesn't means you should insanely "spam" AA's around the FARP/airbase.

 

 

Changes added to operation Kiryat Shmona:

 

- Deploying tanks is not available any more. Other ground units are still available.

- Therefore, tanks' numbers have been adjusted on both sides.

- Deploying MANPAD's is now available.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Changes added to operation Behind Enemy Lines:

 

- 2 x T-80U's and 2 x 2S19 Msta (artillery) added to the advancing Red ground units east of Hatay airbase.

- 6 x T-55's added to Minakh airbase. That means 16 x Leclerc tanks vs 16 X T-55's.

 

I know that the T-55 is not a match for the more advanced Leclerc. But as you know I never make radical changes that might go the opposite direction. The T-55's are now in different locations than before and closer to buildings or places to hide. Let's see how that goes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Changes added to operation Street Fight:

 

- Deploying MANPAD's is now available.

- Some AA's were relocated.

[Volator]

 

*** The briefing in all Syrian missions (Kiryat Shmona, Behind Enemy Lines and Street Fight) has been rewritten with more details added to help understand the situation and objectives better. In addition, more briefing images were added.

*** Once the briefings of all missions are rewritten and optimised, I'll put them all in 1 pdf file (or maybe something similar) and make it available for download on the main page of this thread.

Thank you for putting so much work into this! This will be very helpful.

 

A few changes were added and will be added to ALL missions in the upcoming days/weeks:

 

- Each coalition will have access to 1 JTAC unit instead of 4.

 

Does that mean only one at a time, or one per mission, (i.e. if it gets killed it's gone, no more JTAC for the rest of the mission)?

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Thank you for putting so much work into this! This will be very helpful.

 

 

 

Does that mean only one at a time, or one per mission, (i.e. if it gets killed it's gone, no more JTAC for the rest of the mission)?

 

 

One at a time.

 

Just like the KUB/Hawk SAM sites are limited. For instance, in the mission Once Upon a Time in Abu Dhabi each coalition can deploy up to 3 SAM batteries max. That means 3 at a time. If one or all get destroyed, you can then deploy again until you reach a maximum of 3 SAM sites. Other missions have other limitations.

 

I might allow 2 JTAC units in "bigger" missions like Prince of Persia or Battle Over Sukhumi Unleashed - both are currently offline.

[Volator]

 

Red undoubtedly has the better helicopter for anti-tank/ground work. You could make an argument we have an advantage in slinging as well (of course I say 'we' because I prefer to play red, but I play both sides depending on team balance) because of the Mi-8's better speed. However, the Su-25T is only available in a handful of missions. In others, we're back to the Su-25, which is inferior in capabilities to the A-10A and in some respects, even the Viggen, while also far more prone to interception than the latter is.

 

 

Yes, but then you could also go on and compare A2A missile loads of MiG-21 and F-5E (advantage for Red, with very capable close-in AAM R-60M), compare the conditions for putting up a HAWK site vs. SA-6 (one helicopter/trip/crate for SA-6, four helicopters/trips/crates). But all this generally ok for me - I'm not arguing for balance within a certain timeframe. My personal red line is crossed when we have 1970s hardware and capabilities on Blue side put against late 1980s to 1990s hardware and capabilities on Red side on a server that is called Cold War. I'm arguing for historical consistency. This is what many don't understand or don't want to hear. Maybe you do, your posts here indicate that you are very reasonable and respectful.

 

 

[Volator]

@Alpenwolf

 

Some good news for FARPs

 

[Alpenwolf]

@Alpenwolf

 

Some good news for FARPs

 

Good catch! I'll have a look for sure. The to-do list is growing :smilewink:

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

*** The F-14A replaces the F-14B in all the missions it is available in.

*** The server will go online in a couple of minutes and to welcome the F-14A to the server, operation Search & Destroy will be the first to go online tonight.

 

- Operation Two Towns is back online. One can only hope the new update with all the included fixes helps running the mission flawlessly.

 

 

NOTE:

I don't know how ED did it or whether it was delibrate or not, but the warehouses are NOT corrupted, despite adding a new module. I know what "relief" feel like tonight.

[ConkersBFD]

I don't know how ED did it or whether it was delibrate or not, but the warehouses are NOT corrupted, despite adding a new module. I know what "relief" feel like tonight.

 

:thumbsup:

 

[m4ti140]

Oh, I do and I do.

 

Right. Has, if, with... as Hiromachi would say. Red can deny airspace too and allow Ka-50 and Su-25T a perfect day at the range, or the fast Mi-8 some nice cargo trips to support the ground troops.

 

CA doesn't count as flying.

And no, we can't, the entire area around Hatay is a death sentence to red fighters if overflown. Not to mention if we have to grab strikers that means we end up with fewer fighters than blue. You can't just do a fighter sweep and switch to strikers, you need to maintain air superiority. You clearly have no concept of that. Try that mission on red side and see what you can do.

Mi-8 cargo trips end in getting killed by F-5s on the way, something Hueys don't really need to worry about unless blue has literally 0 fighters in the air and don't bother with sams. Remember that blue also has a much better SEAD platform in form of the Viggen, unless we count the extremely limited supply of 29Ps (and that 25s can survive in an airspace held by numerically superior blue fighters).

 

Also none of this matters regarding my point, my point was that a correctly designed mission will not give automatic victory to one side in absence of players. For PvP a mission does not have to be symmetric but it needs to be designed in such a way, that when the server is empty and only ground forces are fighting, they arrive at a stalemate. Then and only then you add air and try to balance air, again keeping in mind the inevitable asymmetry. If one side has an advantage on the ground the mission is not balanced, because its outcome does not rely exclusively on player skill and that's logic, it's not up to discussion.

[The_Tau]

 

Yes, but then you could also go on and compare A2A missile loads of MiG-21 and F-5E (advantage for Red, with very capable close-in AAM R-60M), compare the conditions for putting up a HAWK site vs. SA-6 (one helicopter/trip/crate for SA-6, four helicopters/trips/crates). But all this generally ok for me - I'm not arguing for balance within a certain timeframe. My personal red line is crossed when we have 1970s hardware and capabilities on Blue side put against late 1980s to 1990s hardware and capabilities on Red side on a server that is called Cold War. I'm arguing for historical consistency. This is what many don't understand or don't want to hear. Maybe you do, your posts here indicate that you are very reasonable and respectful.

 

Ehm, last time I checked mig 21s got R60s not R60Ms, and you need 2 crates for SA6 and not 1 (which is still much less than hawk, thats why I asked if there is any chance with Roland)

[Volator]

 

CA doesn't count as flying.

And no, we can't, the entire area around Hatay is a death sentence to red fighters if overflown. Not to mention if we have to grab strikers that means we end up with fewer fighters than blue. You can't just do a fighter sweep and switch to strikers, you need to maintain air superiority. You clearly have no concept of that. Try that mission on red side and see what you can do.

Mi-8 cargo trips end in getting killed by F-5s on the way, something Hueys don't really need to worry about unless blue has literally 0 fighters in the air and don't bother with sams. Remember that blue also has a much better SEAD platform in form of the Viggen, unless we count the extremely limited supply of 29Ps (and that 25s can survive in an airspace held by numerically superior blue fighters).

 

Also none of this matters regarding my point, my point was that a correctly designed mission will not give automatic victory to one side in absence of players. For PvP a mission does not have to be symmetric but it needs to be designed in such a way, that when the server is empty and only ground forces are fighting, they arrive at a stalemate. Then and only then you add air and try to balance air, again keeping in mind the inevitable asymmetry. If one side has an advantage on the ground the mission is not balanced, because its outcome does not rely exclusively on player skill and that's logic, it's not up to discussion.

 

:helpsmilie:

 

I thought about showing some severe flaws in your logic and your interesting assumptions, about Mi-8 getting shot down by F-5s while Hueys do not have to worry about that and what not, but that's an undertaking too big due to the sheer amount of flaws and "alternative facts" and simply not worth it. I'll ignore your posts from now on. Cheers mate.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

As you know the night missions One Night in Arabia and the currently offline mission Sneaky Bastards are not everyone's favourite due to difficulties with spotting things.

There are two NVG mods, one for the MiG-21 and one for F-5 that you might want to check out. Easy to install and both pass the integrity check.

 

MiG-21

 

F-5

[m4ti140]

 

:helpsmilie:

 

I thought about showing some severe flaws in your logic and your interesting assumptions, about Mi-8 getting shot down by F-5s while Hueys do not have to worry about that and what not, but that's an undertaking too big due to the sheer amount of flaws and "alternative facts" and simply not worth it. I'll ignore your posts from now on. Cheers mate.

 

Ah yes, let's insult and ignore when we can't come up with arguments to defend our position. And pretend things we don't like don't exist. LIKE THE MASSIVE F****NG MOUNTAINS YOU HAVE BETWEEN YOUR FARP AND THE MISSION AREA. Quite convenient when you need to stay safe from enemy air threats.

 

Don't care, just stop spamming the thread, you're wasting storage space on the ED servers. Every single suggestion you bring up would halve the quality of this server if introduced.

[rossmum]

Yes, but then you could also go on and compare A2A missile loads of MiG-21 and F-5E (advantage for Red, with very capable close-in AAM R-60M), compare the conditions for putting up a HAWK site vs. SA-6 (one helicopter/trip/crate for SA-6, four helicopters/trips/crates). But all this generally ok for me - I'm not arguing for balance within a certain timeframe. My personal red line is crossed when we have 1970s hardware and capabilities on Blue side put against late 1980s to 1990s hardware and capabilities on Red side on a server that is called Cold War. I'm arguing for historical consistency. This is what many don't understand or don't want to hear. Maybe you do, your posts here indicate that you are very reasonable and respectful.

 

Historical consistency is something we can't really achieve yet with what we're given in DCS. I have a pet list of things I'd like to see go away but ultimately it'll be a while before anything like that is really viable.

 

The air to air situation is more even than that, I think - the AIM-9P outranges the R-60 considerably in the rear quarter and is a near-guaranteed one hit kill on anything. The R-60 feels slightly less like a wet lettuce than it used to, but sometimes you do still need two or even three to drop particularly sturdy targets and shots from certain aspects have a habit of passing the target before detonating, inflicting bad but survivable damage. The fact the F-5 only gets two missiles is a definite disadvantage, but to be honest anyone carrying six R-60s is probably not someone you need to watch out for so much as someone carrying two or six. The biggest problem blue pilots have with AAMs is not knowing what their acceptable launch parameters are and yeeting their 9Ps away in hopeless shots with close to zero chance of connecting, many of which would be dicey even for the R-60. 90 degree crossing shots on close targets, 50 degree stern shots at half the range the missile needs to turn, etc... for red there tend to be less misses due to bad aspect and more due to bad range. It's not uncommon to see 3 or 4 R-60s all pissed away on a retreating target, which easily outruns all of them but which wouldn't outrun a 9P.

 

If we had older Sidewinders for Blue - 9Ds or so - I'd be in favour of removing the 60s again. As it stands our other missiles are either slight better than a 9B or somewhat worse than a 9P, can't be uncaged for leading shots, and the larger missiles are heavy and draggy enough that the original 21 loadout of two only is strongly recommended.

 

As for blue with 70s hardware vs red with 80s/90s - outside of the specific case of the Su-25T, Ka-50, and the one or two Tors, this isn't a thing really. Our F-5 is a 1980s Swiss aircraft with a considerably better RWR than would have been encountered in the 1970s, far in excess of anything red has access to even on their most modern aircraft. Tanks are a mess, as both teams have somewhat period correct tanks for the mid to late 80s but the damage and armour values are extremely lopsided, and there are things present in CA that weren't there on the real vehicles (e.g. thermals on the BMP, T-72BV) and then features missing which shouldn't be (stabilised guns on... almost everything). Blue have some units from right on the cusp of the 90s but in some cases it was because it's all they really have - like the Avenger being taken to replace the utterly useless Chaparral. For mid-range SAMs there's not really anything that can be done; there was a historical imbalance as it was, let alone what we do/don't have access to in DCS. As long as the bulk of red's air defence is still Shilkas, Strelas, the occasional Osa, and Kub sites, I don't really see a problem.

 

I personally want the Ka-50 off the server but until the Mi-24 is out, it won't fix the situation so much as tip the odds the other way for helicopters. There is also the issue that it and the Su-25T are needed in some missions, particularly Behind Enemy Lines, to try and account for the massive superiority of blue's armour and the A-10, which would otherwise outclass the base-model Su-25 enormously just by virtue of having TV-guided weapons alone. The Viggen is a whole other bucket of issues, but at least in the air to ground role it has that horrid little collimator sight to make life more difficult. The Harrier gives blue a small, fast, and relatively hardy short-range SEAD platform (we have no SEAD capability whatsoever, unless the 25T is in a mission) that can also pack Mavericks, and god forbid one somehow find itself some 9Ms to bring to the party. Unless we take the approach of nixing all specialist aircraft and having a server purely of MiGs vs F-5s we are going to have problems somewhere, IMO the server is fairly reasonable with who gets what and as we get more appropriate units, things can be tweaked to bring more consistency, though we'll always have to deal with some anachronisms in terms of upgraded avionics or such on period-correct aircraft.

 

Tors were addressed by Alpen - there are very few in any of the live missions and most of them are in places players should not even be. In any case, it's a mid-1980s system.

 

Overall I think the available units achieve a reasonable amount of asymmetrical balance. There are some specific problems, but overall I don't think it's fair to claim red has any major advantage at the end of the day and I would actually say there are a few missions where they have to make a much larger effort than blue if they intend to win. Behind Enemy Lines is the poster child for that. The only effective way I can think of neutralising blue's air superiority over Hatay involves pulling fighters away to do it, or requires a (period-correct and very pivotal) aircraft we don't have in the sim yet. Matroshka is absolutely correct in saying that Mi-8s have much bigger problems than the Hueys on that mission, because unless blue's fighter jocks are asleep at the wheel it is trivial for them to maintain air superiority over that entire valley. The closest red transports can really get without unacceptable risk is the far ridgeline.

[rossmum]

Re: NVG mods... kinda wish they didn't pass IC, most of the fun from night flying in these old birds comes from being blind as a bat and relying on instruments and radar. Of course, there will always be minmaxing with people cranking up their gamma and the like, and 90% of the server is highly allergic to climbing above treetop level, but... a man can dream.

[Alpenwolf]

I addressed the Ka-50 quite often and how I reduced it from 6 to 4 and lastly to 2 slots only. I started doing that a little over a year ago, and believe it or not, in preparation for the Mi-24. That doesn't mean the Ka-50 will completely leave the server though. Just because it carries 12 Vikhr's (which was mostly the argument - not yours particularly, rossmum) doesn't mean it's a certainty to get 12 kills. Not even 8 or 4 kills for most of the time.

One of the reasons for not destroying quite some enemy ground units (and this depends on the map) is spotting the units hiding between trees and buildings. And if you'd start climbing a bit to hopefully see the enemy's ground units it often doesn't take long until an F-5 shoots you down.

 

In missions like those in the Persian Gulf and especially when flying over nothing but sand (which is quite often the case) it really doesn't matter whether you're a Ka-50, Mi-24 or something else. Again, you're easily spotted and killed instantly.

 

Doing GCI quite often let me see things I never did until 2020 because prior to that I rarely touched the CA module. Ka-50's or any other helicopters are constantly taken out easily by enemy fighters. So I started moving FARP's whenever possible closer to the action among other things I take into account while designing or redesigning a mission.

 

As long as the target areas are hot and enemy fighters are quite often just nearby waiting to intercept any Red aerial units, the Ka-50 will often fail to live up to its reputation as a formidable tank killer. In real life (and I'm guessing here - maybe a real attack helicopter pilot can elaborate if available around here) helicopters providing CAS is something you mainly see when no enemy fighters are around or while having at least a decent air cover over a large area to enable operating at different altitudes and attacking from different angles. Some weeks ago Red had and for quite a while good air coverage over the whole island of Qeshm in the mission Fight Island. This allowed me to fly the Ka-50 at high altitudes (up to 1000 m AGL at some point) and easily find enemy ground units. In that one sortie alone I scored some 8-9 kills or so. Now, here's the thing: If such a scenario is often seen where one side and for quite a while dominates the airspace and you start seeing Ka-50's being such devastating tank killers then it surely must be taken out of the equation. So there's also that argument for allowing a module or not, and the argument has been so far taken into consideration for helicopters only.

 

I don't think the missions I have are "helicopters friendly" enough for attack helicopters mainly to show their potential capabilities. And if I'd start designing missions that way you'd see a whole different dynamic on the server that most MiG-21 and F-5 pilots wont appreciate. Way less action and less cold-war-like chaotic battlefields.

 

... but some of you really have good points there, gents. I hear you. Thanks for sharing your honest feedback.

 

Let's wait and see what the Mi-24P is all about.

 

Oh, and I like what some user once wrote when a discussion on this thread regarding the Kiowa erupted. He wrote something like this (and I'm paraphrasing here - loath to start looking for the original post):

 

"Why don't we make an exception when it comes to helicopters? It's only 2-4 slots available anyway, and they hardly have any obvious effect on the outcome of any battle".

 

Going down that line though might cause more discussions and open the door for more exceptions!

 

You guys give me a lot to think about. My to-do list is long enough already :smilewink: