Jump to content

1980's East and West Germany map


1980's East and West Germany map  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. 1980's East and West Germany map



Recommended Posts

Ah yeah I was talking about a Fulda Gap map on another thread for what Urgan's next map should be.

 

I marked out the available space we have using Syria's measurements...the biggest issue we have is that all the interesting stuff happens in Berlin and the boarder but most BLUEFOR bases of note were south near Alsace Loraine.

 

Oh and as stated, due to Demark it would make carrier ops very difficult unless people wouldn't mind a very large undetailed area so the map would include Demark so the Carriers could go through the Danish Strait? Something like how Crimea, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Turkey is portray in the Caucuses map? so the land is there just no cities or airfields.

 

Usafe-germany-1975-2.jpg

 

Capture.PNG

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont forget that part´s of the west german highways ( Autobahn ) were also emergency runways.

Indeed, here's a nice video showing this (german audio, but the visuals speak for themselves):

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Germany map is right in my top 3 and would be a day 1 purchase.

Northern Germany [former east/west] along the coast and parts of Denmark, Sweden, Poland.

 

 

Would make a nice battleground for everyone: northern/baltic sea for fictional carrier based flights, parts of Sweden for the Viggen to base at... should be a realistic environment for nearly every post-ww2 module available and in planning right now.

From F-86 and the MiG-15 to the ultramodern birds like the EF afaik they have all been active/stationed in this area ( except the Chinese, sorry guys :D ).

Big cities like Hamburg would have to be cut in detail most probably but that's something i could really tolerate :D

955408832_FRGGDRPLDKSWE.thumb.jpg.0eedbbd268ae466d08de0b6dd9398006.jpg

  • Like 2

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

I'd like a German map, but not just the 1980s. I'd love to have earlier periods too. It would be a good map for all the planes except the JF-17

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'd like a German map, but not just the 1980s. I'd love to have earlier periods too. It would be a good map for all the planes except the JF-17

 

AFAIK there wouldn't be too much of a change between say an early 60s and an 80s map - at least where it matters (i.e air bases).

  • Like 4

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that I really see is just huge major amount of buildings all over the places, requiring compromises where either we get 10% of the buildings overall, the map to feel being smaller than should, with overly large trees, lack of fine terrain details etc. 

 

I would be all for it, but first I would like to see huge improvements to the map technology that we get finally a sub-meter terrain mesh, changing ground from the bombs and such, a random generated ground clutter (editor side, not client side), random building placements on open building location data (open street maps etc). 

 

 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

AFAIK there wouldn't be too much of a change between say an early 60s and an 80s map - at least where it matters (i.e air bases).

I've said it before, I'd like I don't want the earliest German map to be late 1940s/early 50s. I expect the biggest change would be some of the air bases would be World War II style air fields so it won't take a lot of work to make the change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 2:49 PM, Fri13 said:

All that I really see is just huge major amount of buildings all over the places, requiring compromises where either we get 10% of the buildings overall, the map to feel being smaller than should, with overly large trees, lack of fine terrain details etc. 

 

I would be all for it, but first I would like to see huge improvements to the map technology that we get finally a sub-meter terrain mesh, changing ground from the bombs and such, a random generated ground clutter (editor side, not client side), random building placements on open building location data (open street maps etc). 

 

Unfortunately I have to agree - to get the major places and the airbases, it would mandate doing a map that covers at least the northern and central areas (including the Fulda Gap), such a map would give us the best play ground for a lot of our existing assets and aircraft, and if you go north enough (to the border with Denmark), you've got enough water for naval operations.

 

However, you're right, the map would be incredibly large and worse has an absolute tonne of objects that would be required. The mesh would probably have to be very detailed (at least on the northern plains and fulda gap) to best support ground vehicles.

 

It kills me to say it but I think a map like this would but unfeasible at the moment.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KWard said:

 

Which interview? Do you have a link?

Maybe he means this one:

 

 

  • Thanks 4

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bies said:

Simon Pearson said yes for the Cold War 1980s Germany in the interview.

 

I'm still quite sceptical, even if it's my dream map in DCS World.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Convinced Norway would be better...

 

NATO / Warsaw Pact flashpoint, key to war planning and exercises for both sides.

 

Dramatic terrain for low level strike, but with parallel red / blue contest for Red submarine assets access to the Atlantic.
 

Key amphibious element to both sides’ planning

 

Limited need for resource hungry urban areas

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Convinced Norway would be better...

 

NATO / Warsaw Pact flashpoint, key to war planning and exercises for both sides.

 

Dramatic terrain for low level strike, but with parallel red / blue contest for Red submarine assets access to the Atlantic.
 

Key amphibious element to both sides’ planning

 

Limited need for resource hungry urban areas

 

Interesting alternative. But given the rugged terrain and there being two other countries in the way of most land approaches, would it have sufficient ground targets for NATO attack aircraft?

 

Especially with the Apache on the way, I'd expect any feasible choice for a "Cold War Gone Hot" map is going to be someplace where you'd expect to see a lot of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway has a land border with Russia...

 

IIRC the anticipated Soviet threat was a surge of ground forces across this border into Finnmark, allied with a series of amphibious landings along the North Norwegian coast... The objective was to help secure Soviet access to the Atlantic and cut off resupply to NATO ground forces. This would have been an immediate precursor to any action in Central Europe.

 

Pretty sure NATO still exercises for this threat 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Convinced Norway would be better...

 

NATO / Warsaw Pact flashpoint, key to war planning and exercises for both sides.

 

Dramatic terrain for low level strike, but with parallel red / blue contest for Red submarine assets access to the Atlantic.
 

Key amphibious element to both sides’ planning

 

Limited need for resource hungry urban areas

 

I would absolutely love the map, but the whole amphibious and ASW isn't really there yet - neither do we have Cold War naval assets for BLUFOR (and there's still plenty missing for REDFOR, though most of the existing assets are in need of a major graphical overhaul, never mind missing functionality and features).

 

The map would preferably have to stretch from Bodø to Severomorsk to include major airbases for both BLUFOR and REDFOR (going further would be 25nmi off the west Norweigian Coast, and including all of the Murmansk Oblast, and extending north to get much of the Barents Sea).

 

The only REDFOR submarines we have are really only the B-871 Alrosa (commissioned at practically the end of the Cold War) and the Type 093 (which is much more modern ~mid 2000s). There is an additional Pr. 636.3 Improved Kilo in the modelviewer (which has been lying there unimplemented for nearly 4 years - it was added at the same time as the B-871 Alrosa, which is a Project 877V Kilo Mod) but once again, that's a more modern submarine. There isn't a single Cold War BLUFOR submarine, nor are there any Cold War BLUFOR naval assets period, and the only one that is Heatblur's Forrestal.

 

As for submarines they're in their absolute infancy - though at least now there's an actual underwater (as in if you clip the camera underwater, it will actually look as if you're underwater, before there was no lighting or transparency effects while underwater, though the water did have transparency when viewed from above the surface).

 

Spoiler
  • The Oliver Hazard Perry-class we have is a post 2005 vessel - the SPG-60 STIR is uninstalled, it has a Phalanx Block 1B on the back (and technically shouldn't have SM-1MR capability AFAIK).
  • The Ticonderoga-class we have is a Baseline 2 to Baseline 4 vessel (the liveries have ships that are Baseline 2 and Baseline 4) from the mid-to-late 2000s - once again it has Phalanx Block 1B, and Mk38 Mod 2 w. C-Lite
  • The Tarawa we have is also a post 2000s ship - given the inclusion of RIM-116.
  • The Nimitz-Roosevelt class are 2007 and onwards ships (Phalanx Block 1B, RIM-116).
  • The Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 are >2008 ships (Mk38 Mod 2 w. C-Lite) - this one is weird though, because the model seems to be an early Flt. IIA 5"/62 given that it has 2 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS; the ships that have this are only DDG-81 to DDG-84, DDGs-85 to DDG-115/-124 only have the single rear Phalanx. DDG-85 only got its single rear Phalanx in 2015.

 

The only amphibious ship we have is a Project 775 'Ropucha I' which has been stuck in the modelviewer for years and the Tarawa we have is post Cold War. Adding to this, amphibious operations isn't really fully there - you can approximate stuff happening with triggers of course, but ships won't actually drive up to the coast and deploy their ramps to disembark amphibious assault forces or vehicles - they're certainly animated to do so (apart from the Tarawa, which used to have its well-deck, the LST Mk.II and Pr. 775 do have animated ramps).

 

Talking about submarines ASW and submarine vs submarine combat isn't there at all - there are no ASW weapons or sensors in DCS at all, and not sure if there will be in the near future (the only ones still planned are the Mk40 Destructor and Mk63 Quickstrike shallow water (<300 feet) bottom mines for the Hornet (both are essentially Mk83s fitted with a retarding device and given a magnetic influence fuse). These however we're not on the community poll or the features roadmap for the Hornet - but are still on the planned payloads. Torpedoes are still in their absolute infancy too, we only have WWII style gyro angle torpedoes (and even they don't work correctly).

 

The other thing is, we don't have a single asset of the Norwegian, Swedish or Finnish armed forces during the Cold War apart from the AJS 37 for Sweden (though even that is post Cold War, though it's not that difficult to approximate the more appropriate AJ 37). Coupled with the absolute lack of BLUFOR naval assets (well, we're also missing a lot of REDFOR assets too) gives us some difficulty for Cold War scenarios.

 

You are however right about the feasibility - much of the workload is getting a very detailed mesh - particularly for Norway, you would have to have at least semi-accurate bathymetry ((which only needs to be at the level of the pre 2.5 era Caucasus map). It would be much more feasible than a northern/central Germany map (which is my first choice), and a Baltic map. 

 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, re what is available now... but there is a whole set of blue naval assets inbound with S Atlantic - including subs and amphibious assault ships...

 

Re Norwegian assets, we have the ubiquitous F-16, although a late model... The Norwegians also flew F86s, F5s and UH-1s... and of course, as a NATO response then any era applicable NATO assets apply 😉

 

I do like the sound of Bodø to Severomorsk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 9:00 AM, rkk01 said:

Agreed, re what is available now... but there is a whole set of blue naval assets inbound with S Atlantic - including subs and amphibious assault ships...

 

True, though only for the British - and I'm unsure as to how far RAZBAM are going with the detail and the whole naval aspect in DCS is sorely lacking, everywhere to the models (apart from 2, and one of those is inaccurate for respective ships of its class), AI, sensors modelling, countermeasures, damage models etc - I could go on for ages.

 

Quote

Re Norwegian assets, we have the ubiquitous F-16, although a late model... The Norwegians also flew F86s, F5s and UH-1s... and of course, as a NATO response then any era applicable NATO assets apply 😉

 

True, though they flew the F-5A (though the E I guess is an okay stand-in). As for the F-86, well the early Cold War (especially the 50s) is probably the least flushed out as far as assets go. I forgot to mention that we do have an F-16A (unsure on the variant, but it has Sparrows so it must be a Block 15 ADF), it is in need of a graphical rework however. I also don't think it can carry the Penguin Mk.3 which Norway operates on their F-16A/B/AM/BM.

 

Quote

I do like the sound of Bodø to Severomorsk

 

Bodø and Severomorsk-1 through to Severomork-3 are really essential for this map. The former is a major Norwegian airbase, basing 2 F-16A and later F-16AM squadrons. Historically, it was a base for Norwegian F-86s and CF-104/CF-104D/F-104G/TF-104G. As for Severomorsk:

  • Severomorsk-1 is a major maritime reconnaissance and strike and ASW base - basing the Tu-22M (most likely the M2/M3 - we already have a late 80s (at least) M3, but is missing a few stores. It also bases the Tu-16, which I'm assuming at the time was the Tu-16K-10-26 'Badger C Mod.' maritime strike, maybe the Tu-16KSR-2-5-11 'Badger G' (maritime strike but retaining bombing capability, but without the Badger C's RADAR), the Tu-16RM-1/2 'Badger D' maritime reconnaissance and targeting and the Tu-16P 'Badger L' EW aircraft. It also bases the Il-38 MPA, which I think is more or less dedicated ASW, depending on variant (my take would be a base Il-38 of the AV-MF). 
  • Severomorsk-2 is an SAR base basing the Be-12PS (the Be-12PL being the ASW version).
  • Severomorsk-3 also historically based the Tu-16 (not sure which specifically, but I'll assume the same variants as above of the AV-MF). Otherwise it bases aircraft embarked on aircraft carriers when they're in port. During the Cold War, this would've been the Yak-38, -38M and -38U on board Pr. 1143/Kiev-class heavy aviation cruisers. Now it bases the Su-33, and the Su-25UB and Su-25UTG.

You'll probably note however, that we're missing all of the above apart from the Tu-22M3 and Su-33. I'm unsure if the Tu-142 'Bear F' was based around here (EDIT: It was/is, 5x Tu-142 'Bear F' can be seen at Severomorsk-1; 3 on the northern taxiway onto RWY 14, with another 2 on taxiways/ramps on the south-western side. Presumably these are Russian Tu-142MK Mod. 3/4 - though I don't know what variant the current DCS one is - FWIW I think the best variant to go for is the Tu-142M 'Bear F Mod. 2' or Tu-142MK 'Bear F Mod. 3').

 

Of course, there's also Severomorsk naval base, which is the main base of the Soviet and later Russian Northern Fleet. There's also an ELF submarine communications facility (ZEVS) to the south of Severomorsk-3 (though the antennae are underground, there is surface infrastructure on the western ends of the antennae).

 

Norway is also missing their P-3 Orion MPAs (which are based in Andøya) - during the Cold War these would have been P-3Bs and then from 1989 onwards the P-3C Update III and later (post 2000s) P-3C Update III UIP Orions.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites



 
Norway is also missing their P-3 Orion MPAs (which are based in Andøya) - during the Cold War these would have been P-3Bs and then from 1989 onwards the P-3C Update III and later (post 2000s) P-3C Update III UIP Orions.


CAM includes a beautiful P-3, though it's probably not the correct one. And we do have the Hercules module now too.
Cheers!


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...