“There I was, inverted, low level over the ocean and… I mean… You should’ve seen the size of that shark…!” 
15 Likes
Continuing my sightseeing excursions in Syria …I go all James Bond (with predictable results) so in true captain zebra style.
Yes … I thought …
will try the Huey next time
10 Likes
It’s easier in the huey 
3 Likes
Try a YaK next time 
2 Likes
That’s known as Kitchen Sinkin’.
2 Likes
My rule is this–the air defense assets should never outnumber the air assets.
If there are 5 blue planes and 10 red SAMs, it’s not right. If there are 10 blue planes and 5 red SAMs, that’s much better. Especially when you can watch one SAM site knock down 5 planes in quick succession and you will never see one plane take out 5 SAM sites the same way.
Do you mean theatre defense ADA or SHORAD? Because SHORAD should be all over the place. Larger systems like SA-6, SA-11, etc. should be arranged for coverage of an area and it’s possible to only have a handful. However, given reload times and operations, sometimes it’s better to have multiple systems to cover an area when another is reloading.
1 Like
I mean total units in a mission.
You can’t say you need realistic numbers of ground units and then have an unrealistically small number of air units.
The numbers need to balance. In a real conflict between two factions like DCS could model, there should be dozens and dozens of fighter planes on both sides, not counting helos, transports, bombers, drones, etc. Yet we often fly them with like 4 of this plane, 2 of that, 4 of the other, and a random this or that. Then the opposing side has like numbers of fighters and support.
Ok, fine, but making the ADA coverage suitable for defending against dozens and then sending 4 is ridiculous.
Imagine how well Desert Storm would’ve went if the US had sent 10 planes.
2 Likes
I disagree. If it’s a single mission it should of course be achievable but that doesn’t mean there should be less air defences than airborne assets. Let’s say the target is some strategic asset like a power plant or airfield that’s heavily defended by SAMs and SHORADS. Air defences should always outnumber the strike package. It’s up to the mission designer to design everything in a way that makes the mission achievable. TALDs in combination with HARMs are extremely powerful for example and even if you don’t destroy the SAMs it should give the strikers a big enough time window to hit the target. Of course achieving something like this needs training and the timing needs to be spot on. It’s not for the casual DCS player and that’s okay.
What we are working on is something completely different though. The idea with the persistent map is that it plays a little bit like a dynamic campaign. Progress is saved and you can pick up where you left or take over from other flights and continue their tasks. There are gamemaster slots so you can create specific missions on the fly. The theatre is littered with SAMs and SHORADS though. At first we wanted to recreate the real Syrian SAM sites but that brought the server down immediately. So now it’s a couple of SA-10s and quite a few overlapping SA-11 and SA-6 sites about 700 Units total, including the supporting SHORADS. SAM sites are controlled by Skynet and SHORADS are devided into zones that are activated when players enter the AO to minimise server load.
What this achieves is a theatre that feels alive and changes constantly every time a group flies a successful mission and it guarantees that we can leave the map running for months without having to create a completely new mission. All that’s necessary is to fly reconnaissance and create a scenario that fits within the scope of the map. The air defences provide a framework that a gamemaster can enhance by spawning in ground assets in a predefined AO for the other players to enjoy. If you only have a couple of players you can fly on the outskirts of the heavily defended areas and still achieve progress, even if only minimal.
Of course we are a group of active players and this wouldn’t work as a public server because you can easily crash the server by spawning in tons of units but for a closed group it really works quite well and I’m really looking forward to stop testing and start the map for real but there are still quite a few things to work out before it’s ready.
4 Likes
I usually incorporate other AI aircraft into scenarios to deal with that potential problem. Lately, I’ve been incorporating an AI assistance option for players in event of limited player counts, which has worked out fairly well (though the AI needs rigorous testing to ensure they do their assigned tasking).
MANPADS, AAA, and other SHORAD systems are fairly common though, but dealing with them inside of DCS isn’t too difficult. It’s all about scaling the response to be proportionate to what is being defended. In addition, utilizing a system like Skynet can change the game considerably, making it possible for a 4 ship to operate in a contested AO so as long as the plan is set right.
Take a look back at what @Wes, @AndyE, and I did in Delta Five, which is a SCUD hunt over heavily-defended Iran: DCS 2.5.x Screenshots (2020) - #1138 by Franze
This mission is set with multiple Hawk systems, SA-2 systems, rare SA-6 systems, approximately 20-30 alert fighters, and SHORADs all over the place such as Rapier, ZU-23, and MANPADS. Despite all that, not every defense is active at any one time, due to a basic IADS I developed that links EWR units with alerting ADA and fighters. For example, it’s possible to destroy a few EWR sites without alerting the entire defense network, allowing a small group some breathing room to achieve the objective or disable more of the ADA. Alternatively, a four ship can pretty much defend itself all the way through even if the defenses are alerted; it just means one has to be aware of the current environment they’re in.
5 Likes
The problem with limited defenses is they are so easily defeated. You can throw JDAM’s at a SA-10 site and kill it from a Hornet.
An A-10C can use force correlate on AGM-65’s and throw them at SA-2/3/6 from 9nm away. SA-11 is a bit tougher as you can’t just prioritize the main radar, but it’s not impossible.
This is all before HARM, SLAM, JSOW get mixed in.
Then there is flying over anything that can’t reach up to you and simply hitting it with an LGB.
Even still, that SA-10 could also be hit from someone flying NOE, so some SHORADs are in order for close in defense.
If a target is classed as defended then it should be, heavily. For example, add a few dispersed SA-15s nearby as they can counter incoming munitions. A single wouldn’t do as it will use it’s 8 missiles and then the door is open again.
I do however, agree to reduced defenses for beginner-friendly environments as players learn to navigate different type of threats, and how to respond to and engage them in return.
Now if the goal is a quick-play single player mission, then sure - less is more. However, if the layout permits then I will certainly fly over, around or even through those defenses.
4 Likes
Took the summer off from DCS. Spent the last week or so knocking off the rust in da F-16- formation flying and AAR with a buddy. A-10 requal in progress this week for the upcoming “II” upgrade. Oh how I missed VR combat flight simmin’!.. And the Reverb G2 is imminent as well.
Time to get back in the Hollo Pointe servers!
10 Likes
As someone who has flown DCS for roughly 2 hrs a week maximum for the last decade, those scenarios all sound…well, insane to me.
Of course, I don’t play H2H games. I lost my taste for games where I’m competing against other humans around age 30 and it never returned. That’s because I game to relax. Dying all the time is not relaxing, it’s wasting my 2 measly hours a week.
I find evading the missiles in DCS has a roughly 50% chance of success. So launch 10 missiles at me, yeah, I’m going down.
I don’t find that the least entertaining. Nor do I find missions that seem to posit that I’m Singapore invading China entertaining.
I also notice all these described scenarios seem to be SAM-heavy red-air devoid. There’s no leisurely lobbing JDAMs or LGB plinking when you have MiGs and Flankers coming at you. I’d say more than half the time I’m shot down, it’s because while reacting to a SAM site a MiG snuck up on me, or while trying to take out the Flanker before it gets me an SA-13 gets me. If you have 20 seconds to line up, lock, and fire on a given ground target before you’re going defensive again, you’re in the lap of luxury.
I just find the idea of 5 blue planes against 15 red and over a dozen SAM sites at the target alone highly suspect. Of course, if you’re talking about only ever flying on an MP server where there are 20 human blue planes all in the air at once, well…I wish I got to live in your world.
As I said, though, it’s 2 hrs a week with 2 or 3 others in MP max for me and that’s all it will ever be unless I win the lotto and never need to work again.
4 Likes
Our flying time varies. The full scenario times out after 12 hours. A play through to victory is usually on order of 4-6 hours - and we don’t always play through, for a similar time-budget reason. More players helps the time crunch, but it’s usually not much more than myself, Franze, AndyE and perhaps USMCBEANS. Others on occasion.
Offensive Posture, which I described can be PvP but usually we all play one side PvE. We have 0-4 enemy AI fighters (pairs of Mig-29 or Su-27) and same for blue (m2k, hornet) with optional f-15c pair CAP request on a radio menu call.
Strike have to be timed to avoid enemy CAP, or punch through them. Our other strategy is to let them chase us to friendly SAMs and save the risk. This works really well, even against players.
We tend to not risk being shot down, staying on the edge of a SAM envelope(1) or out of range of enemy fighters unless we specifically want to engage - this also requires more time. Some sessions end with little accomplished if we had to avoid enemy CAP constantly.
Sometimes there is more risk, and usually deaths result too. Like charging a sam site or into a dogfight without a clear initial advantage.
(1) Get just close enough for an SA-11 to launch and then turn away, for example. Missiles won’t reach you and you can repeat until they run out of ammo. Shorter range SAMs this doesn’t always work as well, but it can. The SA-10 isn’t one to play with either.
For us it’s a cooperative strategy game now more than an action game. I suppose it’s worth a more detailed AAR or even a video to get the right feel, @Franze does an excellent job of giving the missions sufficient complexity that a short write up can’t include all the elements.
5 Likes
I see your point and agree on some things.
The problem for mission designers is to create enough action to keep a balance. Enough A2G to provide a decent target selection for the group. Enough SAM/AAA to give some resistance and enough REDAIR to counter.
But I see massive over emphasis on nearly every server I’ve visited, with a few exceptions where its a smaller one. But every mission is an Alpha strike. Or its Air Quake with jets going up with no fuel and all A2A weapons.
Luckily having a dedicated group to sim with, we control the level of play. Thats key.
Yes, I agree that it does seem most publicly available missions tend to skew towards either “FFA GIT ER DONE YAW!!” or “at least 3 graduate level classes in BFM, SEAD, and taking out bandits in the dark with a tea cup required.” The former bores us, the latter often frustrates us.
My group has had some good luck with modifying TTI and Clearfield and some of those other missions to suit our numbers and style.
Might need to make a topic for this, but can you give examples for the former and the latter? Where does the intermediate level lie?
For the latter, I’m assuming the effect of something like a 4 ship going up against 24-36 modern fighters at once (MiG-31, J-11, etc.), several layers of S-300/SA-10 sites, and rings of SA-15s. The former I’m a bit lost at unless it’s something like a lone MANPADS on a hill 300 miles south of the AO and a lone guy with 5 rounds left in his machine gun, with 4 blind MiG-15s buzzing about.
Everyone plays differently and we all have varying levels of skills, so what seems boringly easy to me might be incredibly hard for someone else. For example, anything shy of a SA-10, SA-15, or SA-19 I find I can outwit and destroy by myself with dumb munitions with a bit of wild flying (like NOE). Air combat for team blue might as well be easy-peasy thanks to AMRAAM and AIM-54, but lacking those options, the AI leaves itself open to a lot of different tricks and strategies to the point I’ve been able to beat them with lowly AIM-9s or the gun. I’m not some kind of professional either; it’s just that the AI’s bag of tricks primarily amount to “if situation bad, then cheat.”
Erl Sis is up! 