This is a kinda-sorta thing in reality. Like the Su-25T only having a few examples made, the same is true of a lot of interim MiG-29 and Su-27 variants. They were offered for sale/upgrade to customers, but few bought them. The vast majority of Su-25s in Russian service remain the same old Su-25A, with a handful having some bolted on additional capability. The R-77 wasnât even brought into Russian service until 2015 â so if weâre looking at things realistically, the MiG-29S shouldnât even be able to equip them in Russian service prior to that year.
That isnât to say I wouldnât be pleased to see a MiG-29SMT, Su-27M, or Su-25SM, but my take is that too many people expect the Russian aircraft to be something theyâre not. The introduction of these more capable variants doesnât suddenly give you the equivalent to an F-16C or F-15E because they were never designed for that to begin with. Yes, some capability is there, but itâs not going to be anywhere near the equivalent of western capability. By and large, theyâre designed to tote some rockets and iron bombs because that fits what Russian doctrine calls for.
The unfortunate reality is that mission designers donât (or cannot) make missions with this in mind. You canât deploy red forces identically to blue forces; there has to be some variances in how theyâre organized and engaged. Thus, you get lopsided scenarios where blue outnumbers red by a great margin when it should be the other way around. In addition, red players often forget to utilize their own advantages like SAM systems because they want to get those sweet, sweet air kills so they can claim to be Maverickski. Leading a 4 ship of F-15s into a SAMbush doesnât compute in most playerâs minds, but Iâve done it many times in MiG-29A, Su-33, and MiG-21. Again, you have to think differently â as an old Russian friend of me once told me, âYouâre thinking like an American.â
This is one thing Iâve never quite understood why ED is so stubborn about. Perhaps a fear that more or new FC planes might bite into potential MAC profits? I did read today that ED says it cannot and will not do Russian aircraft modules and my feeling is that it comes down to risk vs reward, access to information, and whether or not they can legally do it.
Even the FC level aircraft have to have a reasonable level of fidelity/realism to their systems, so having accurate information on hand is still important even if the system depth is limited to one or two functions. I may only intend to use some basic number crunching for a radar, but I still need some sources to tell me what the radar display is supposed to look like so I can create an accurate picture of the real thing, even if the information isnât 1:1.
I donât think we even have that level of control over the game settings as it is. Itâs either all or none, which makes it difficult to cater to individual player choice. The information displayed is the same whether youâre using the gates or pressing a cycle target key. This certainly hasnât been EDâs strong suit, but as youâve noted, those who demand realism at any cost have been the squeaky wheel for some time now, so we get in-depth system modeling at the expense of gameplay mechanics.
This is because when you build a mission for SP, itâs usually pretty straightforward: you have a picture in your mind of how the scenario should play out and can guide the player in a certain way, with some flexibility. In MP, youâre setting up a scenario that needs to accommodate many players, many roles, many objectives, and the various ways those objectives can be completed. I might want to make a scenario that can have helicopters, CAS jets, fighters, naval operations, and ground operations, then allow players in each role achieve their objectives. The level of complexity can get mind boggling, but for a join in progress, continuously running mission, I donât want to alienate the players who want to fly a Ka-50 nor the players who primarily roll with an F-14. This isnât something you have to worry about with SP: you make it for one airframe and build the whole scenario around what it can do.
In addition, getting the AI to play ball can get really, really, really annoying. Did you know that an Su-25A set to CAS in zone will actually be more proactive about engaging targets than an A-10A with identical settings? And if you donât set either one to ignore air targets, they will immediately deviate from their route to go attack other CAS aircraft? I canât even set their target priority! So my choices are basically âCAS but kinda meh, and we sit around like idiots while a fighter pounds our butt with missiles,â or âCAS but not really because we hate that helicopter over there 300 miles away more than the SA-15 currently hammering us with 20 missiles.â Oh, I also canât get the AI to properly behave defensively: SAM, AAA, or aerial threat and theyâll ditch their ordnance and run, or I set them to evade fire and theyâll do nothing but fly in circles âevadingâ for 20 minutes until something inevitably gets lucky.
Regarding ADA and ground assets, I vary this depending on the scenario and importance of what theyâre defending. Bear in mind that ADA by default is pretty dumb and you have to employ scripting to make them work in a more realistic fashion. High value targets get high value defenses, resulting in an SA-10 with SA-15s. Medium value gets SA-11, SA-19; low value maybe SA-6 and SA-8. Front line is relegated to mobile systems like SA-19 and SA-13. For blue, itâs quite a bit harder because your options are pretty much Stinger, Roland, Hawk, and Patriot. The Rapier is, frankly, terrible, so I rarely use it. The Patriot is also damn near useless and lately Iâve seen Hawks engaging long before the Patriot does.
With that, I donât tend to use multiples of the same system around the same site. If thereâs an SA-10, itâs just one, backed up by an SA-11 or SA-6, with SA-15 and SA-19 rounding out the defense, coupled with MANPADS and smaller systems for the lower levels. The goal being to force players to work together to achieve an objective and to discourage lone wolfing (not always successful). Thereâs a lot of creative ways players can outsmart even the most advanced SAM systems and Iâve done a lot of them myself. Definitely not doctrinal approved and definitely dangerous as all get out â something we wouldnât try in the real world unless the situation was critical and there were zero other options. Still, thereâs something special about doing NOE with an F-16 and then toss bombing some CBU-97s over a mountain to take out an SA-10 site.
For me, the problem with DCS scenario creation is I donât have enough flexibility within the scenario. Whether itâs getting the AI to do something or a briefing different from the classic wall oâ text, I often feel constrained in what I can do within a mission.
