Coalitions in Syria

[Rom_un]

I like to have the most realistic environment for my missions.

I love the way DCS deliver us maps with a strong geopolitical actuality : Crimea, Georgia, Gulf

(Las Vegas cause I went there :smilewink:)

 

With the great Syria map, I have problems to set-up coalitions :

 

1. pre-2011, or without ISIS crisis scenario

Where the S-300 can shoot everything over meditarean sea.

 

We need to set-up a third coalition for Israel that have his own enemies and ROE. The main issue for mission editing is to add non-sharing data between allies likes Nato/Blue - Israel

This just an example that can apply to Russia, Turkey, Syria, France...

 

2. With 2011 crisis scenario, where S-300 shoot civilian and Russian EW planes

 

 

 

Both don't represent Israel while they are active in the region.

The complexity involve more coalition than 2, with specific ROE, sharing information (F10 map, L16) and IFF behavior.

 

With the additional neutral coalition DCS add :thumbup:, it's simpler to add civilians. 3 coalitions are not Boolean, it should be feasible to have n coalitions.

Units country should not be a part of coalition, to allow mission with different insurgee groups or different configurations ( S-300 sold to Turkey, sent to Lybia for ex.)

 

Another problem is the lack of actual targets : infantry and armored pickup.

 

US, Georgia, Insurgent, Russia, Serbia and eastern europe country have infantry;

While Syria, west europe has none.

[Vurbileron]

Hi, very nice charts!

I have the same problem with coalitions

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

maybe an option to add coalitions, not just countries to a mission would useful.  I can put that into the DCS wishlist.  Hopefully it will be an easy QoL feature to add and won't cause any issue.

[StevanJ]

Theres a red coalition, a Blue Coalition, and a neutral coalition- Im curious to see why would you need anything other than that- More colours Id think would be a good idea, but more coalitions?

Unless youd want to attack three different coalitions who are attacking each other, then i have to ask when would you need more than two other than for labels in which case why couldnt you just name them insurgents- rather than 'name the particular terrorist group', id be interested to know why that wouldnt be satisfactory?

If im to understand, if you were to attack a coalition who are on your side, then you could be blue, the attackers could be red, and the team youre defending can be blue or neutral.
Is this not good an unfair and unbiased solution?
 

[DarkFire]

I agree, coalitions for the Syria map can be problematic. Something I'd like to see would be an expansion of the "Insurgent" faction, or maybe a dedicated faction called "terrorist forces" or similar.

[StevanJ]

On 3/23/2021 at 11:38 PM, Desert Fox said:

("Coalitions" are not only colors, they define who is shooting at who, and whom not. That's where it's getting interesting.)

Some sort of finer control over allies would indeed be a nice thing to have. Current war in Syria really is a good example:

 

Turkey and US fight ISIS. Kurds do so too.

US supports Kurds. Turkey fights them.

Hezbollah is fighting Israel and ISIS while Israel is allied to the US and kind of OK with Russia which all fight ISIS.

Now add the other dozen different factions in the region, which all form a dense spider web of alliances and aversions between each other.

 

Current war in Syria is a highly complex and dynamic conflict and currently there is no mechanic to simulate this even closely.

 

Would be nice to have a matrix organized system rather than the coalition one. You'd have each faction on X and Y axis and could set each to ally, hostile or neutral to every else.

To be set ingame like this:

 

 

To add: i think this should maybe moved over to the DCS wishlist? Since coalitions isn't a thing done by Ugra but is an integral part of DCS and maintained by ED themselves.

 

 

 

Key factor being 'Messy Political'..

Does ED want to engage in Politics?
I dont think they will..

[StevanJ]

40 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Don't see how ED would "engage" in politics if they gave players better tools to create more realistic and complex scenarios

 

Well better tools I'll agree with, but labelling terrorist groups that some who may have lost families by -I think may be in bad taste.

 

I may be wrong..

I just don't think ED will support or add these groups to the game.

Especially when 'insurgents' is a term that covers those same groups without highlighting one specifically.

 

We live in a world where we can't even publish cartoons without someone seeing it offensive.

[MAXsenna]

 
Well better tools I'll agree with, but labelling terrorist groups that some who may have lost families by -I think may be in bad taste.
 
I may be wrong..
I just don't think ED will support or add these groups to the game.
Especially when 'insurgents' is a term that covers those same groups without highlighting one specifically.
 
We live in a world where we can't even publish cartoons without someone seeing it offensive.

Yes, people gets too easily offended.
Nazis are called, well Nazis, in every game.
Now, if ED could make it so that it's up to campaign and mission makers to create the alliances etc. They should be off the hook. My opinion anyway.
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[StevanJ]

45 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

People definitely have lost (and are losing actually) someone (be it military personal or civilians). To A-10C gun rounds in Syria, to Su-25 delivered rockets in Georgia, to bombs delivered by Third Reich fighter-bombers over the Normandy or Dover. Bad taste too isn't it?

 

Did not stop ED from making DCS, it's maps (iirc Caucasus came when the war was quite fresh back then) and modules with all the real factions that belong to these theaters. And with Syria, we have multiple "insurgent" factions, some allied, some at war with each other, some loosely work together today and fight each other tomorrow.

Just one generic "insurgent" faction isn't working here as well as having just a simple "good, bad, neutral" faction setting. There is no way to simulate historical (or fictional based on the real situation) scenarios with multiple of these "insurgents". And by far not the relations they have to each other.

 

I'd personally love to create scenarios where one got to fly CAS for US or Russian ground troops, which fight together with allied "insurgents" against opposing "insurgents". You'd have to very carefully PID there and it would make a very realistic scenario. Flying the very same scenario from another nations POV (which is allied with US or Russia) would maybe change a lot when it comes to who is friend and who is foe.

I also think of the planned dynamic campaign engine. There's at least a dozen different interest groups involved, all with different goals to achieve. With the current factions and faction relation system, this would be a VERY simplified "A fight B" scenario.

 

I totally see your motivation here, but from that standpoint we should probably have no real factions at all. Just generic Bluefor, Redfor and Whitefor.

In all the conflicts we simulate (or will, in the future) in DCS, every side has killed someone and telling who's the good guy and who's the bad guy in the end is, hands down and no judgement at all, just a matter of where you live, how you grew up, who pays your bills... by a lot of more factors.

 

There really is a dilemma here you point out. I see that. But to be honest, by having some factions in (US, Russia, etc) and leaving some others out there definitely is a political engagement where really none should be. Neutrality is when you show the whole picture without judging and put in all the bits and pieces that make up the whole without letting some fall under the table.

 

This is a military aviation/conflict simulator after all and it strives to be realistic. Including all involved factions and their relations to make a realistic simulation of historical conflicts possible is no political statement or support for any group at all. It's providing tools to recreate reality in a simulation that revolves around military conflicts.

 

To add: this thread really was created to advocate for more than the three factions we got right now (good, bad, neutral) and not as a political discussion i see this going to right now. Guess it would be wise to take a loooooong breath or two before hitting that submit button in here Thanks!

 

 

 

You raise some good points.

 

I'd be interested to know why the user above you referenced Naz*'s and yourself referenced the third reich?

[MAXsenna]

 
You raise some good points.
 
I'd be interested to know why the user above you referenced Naz*'s and yourself referenced the third reich?

'Cause that's what we call them in Norway. Maybe I should have written "Axis".
I meant no harm.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[StevanJ]

18 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

'Cause that's what we call them in Norway. Maybe I should have written "Axis".
I meant no harm.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

I know you didn't. 

It's OK.

 

Just like you didn't mean any harm.

Neither does ED, and rather than trip and offend someone somewhere.

It's probably easier to avoid everyone and I think that's why we have enemies called 'insurgents'.

 

You all raise good points though.

And I'd be interested in seeing a resolve to your points.

[StevanJ]

I think a basic word search in google would give you a basic understanding to why 'Third Reich' is used in the game instead of the other term previously used.

 

11 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

That brings us to what i wrote about neutrality. The moment you, on purpose, leave out one faction that played a (recognizable) role in a conflict you resemble while you get others in, you introduce ideology because you've got to justify why one is in and the other isn't. One could even advocate you are obliged to put them all in from that point on if you want to remain neutral.

Yeah, I agree, Which is why i doubt ED would put any of them in..

What about 'Allied Insurgent'? Or 'Opposing Insurgent' as you mentioned? Would that suffice?

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Okay, i'm a bit confused right now because that's the exact opposite conclusion i came to

 

Because, like said, if you want to stay neutral, accurately portray a conflict (and that's exactly where i see ED strives to) as is in all it's facets. Once you omit or alter relevant parts, you by that make a political statement. And that is something i assume ED does definitely not want to do.

So i'm still wondering why some generic "allied insurgent" and "opposing insurgent" is of such an importance. Genuinely don't see what is so problematic about portraying certain things as they are in real life and also naming them correctly.

 

 

I really dont know im just guessing on what we have..

Who am i to say whats allowed, and not allowed.

I think you can accurately portray a very real conflict in the current engine..
And I dont think the current view on factions needs to be altered as it wouldnt achieve any difference in an outcome from a mission, if made well..
The only thing i actually agree with Op. on is where he says..

 

On 8/24/2020 at 12:55 PM, Rom_un said:

Another problem is the lack of actual targets : infantry and armored pickup.

Which is especially true now we have the tide of helicopters approaching. The Hind does need new targets as its not as sophisticated as the Apache.
We do need new/more infantry- Especially a new AI with a multitude of Liveries, and a new wave of animations for the model.

Otherwise the Hind's gonna be a little bit boring.

Everything else is really easily solvable and very do-able from a mission perspective, in the mission editor.
And added factions/coalitions wouldnt add anything to a mission/campaign but another layer of complexity that i personally think is unwanted..

Do you build missions? Is this something you think might make your missions better?
 

[Rom_un]

I play mostly my own missions and trying to keep the most accurate tactical situation.
Using trigger for ROE, MOOSE and Skynet IADS scripts are fun and ED make nice updates on the editor.
But a coalition posture editor in the way of Command Modern Operation would be useful especially for me on 2 maps:
Syria : Red and blue fight insurgents but don’t share information; Israel don’t share L16 with NATO…
Ormuz : Make missions with ship policy / zone interdiction.

 

I will try to finish one and publish it, to make it better with community
 

[Napa]

On another note, since Cyprus will be added on Syria map in a future update, is also now a coalition. Thank you ED for adding my country as well.

 

 

[MAXsenna]

On another note, since Cyprus will be added on Syria map in a future update, is also now a coalition. Thank you ED for adding my country as well.
 
 

Can I ask you a personal question?
Would you have ever imagined that your favorite flightsim actually would model your homeland?
I'm so enviousl! I bet you're just dying to fly over you're house!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Napa]

15 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

Can I ask you a personal question?
Would you have ever imagined that your favorite flightsim actually would model your homeland?
I'm so enviousl! I bet you're just dying to fly over you're house!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

 

I know right! Never in a million years I would imagine this.

[MAXsenna]

 
I know right! Never in a million years I would imagine this.

Good for you!
I'll enjoy it with you!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[evanf117]

On 8/24/2020 at 9:55 PM, Rom_un said:

I like to have the most realistic environment for my missions.

I love the way DCS deliver us maps with a strong geopolitical actuality : Crimea, Georgia, Gulf

(Las Vegas cause I went there :smilewink:)

 

With the great Syria map, I have problems to set-up coalitions :

 

1. pre-2011, or without ISIS crisis scenario

Where the S-300 can shoot everything over meditarean sea.

 

We need to set-up a third coalition for Israel that have his own enemies and ROE. The main issue for mission editing is to add non-sharing data between allies likes Nato/Blue - Israel

This just an example that can apply to Russia, Turkey, Syria, France...

 

2. With 2011 crisis scenario, where S-300 shoot civilian and Russian EW planes

 

 

 

Both don't represent Israel while they are active in the region.

The complexity involve more coalition than 2, with specific ROE, sharing information (F10 map, L16) and IFF behavior.

 

With the additional neutral coalition DCS add :thumbup:, it's simpler to add civilians. 3 coalitions are not Boolean, it should be feasible to have n coalitions.

Units country should not be a part of coalition, to allow mission with different insurgee groups or different configurations ( S-300 sold to Turkey, sent to Lybia for ex.)

 

Another problem is the lack of actual targets : infantry and armored pickup.

 

US, Georgia, Insurgent, Russia, Serbia and eastern europe country have infantry;

While Syria, west europe has none.

it would be nice to have a system where we can make infinite coalitions and give them different colours and allied/axis settings to others so we could accurately simulate this