The terrain is rugged with low lands, mountains, a pretty dramatic coastline. A lack of trees and cities would make this very FPS friendly, which would allow for more in mission units? Lots of Ocean, and the South Atlantic has a reputation for being rough, so the carriers will be challenging to operate from (assuming the scenario is set up correctly)
The AV8B can be hobbled to better approximate a GR3 (Rockets, dumb bombs and guns only). For AD, AIM9L and guns only. In fact the AV8B should be less capable than a FRS1 SHAR because it has no radar.
Again, with just a little imagination we could have the makings of a decent and very enjoyable scenario. You just have to stop counting rivets.
I’ll swing the other way to attempt to sit squarely on the fence in that if we don’t HAVE to make concessions to the Falklands War (if that is what they are going for), then I’m even better with that. That seems like a very, very big reach though for a single developer. I mean, are we really expecting them to make all the flyable units to DCS non FC level fidelity and have that done along with all the other theater assets and terrain, etc…etc…etc… I doubt it. So I think concessions in some areas are going to almost have to happen.
But if they WANT to do it full-on…hey…more power to em’…
Believe me, a full on Falklands ‘82 setup would be unbelievable. I just think that the Falklands would make a great map for a variety of scenarios with the current and near future planeset.
I think one of the important takeaways is that they are branching into terrain development. That alone is fairly significant, and I’m guessing that the Falklands, with its limited urban areas, relatively uniform terrain, and FPS friendly type of structure, might be a good starting point for them.
That’s a valid point, and DCS is supposed to have place able airfields at some point. Currently however we don’t, and we have not heard a peep on the subject in roughly a year. I’ve had my hand slapped enough to learn to stop assuming things will fall in place until I’m told they will. This also applies to Sea Harriers, GR.3s, Etendards, FV101s and the RN.
So using your Fulda Gap scenario, you that area has towns, bridges, power stations, rail ways, factories, military bases and canals. The ground and air forces of most conceivable combatants are well represented in a period that spans from the 1970s up to today. These are the tool set of the mission developer. These are things to attack, defend, and destroy, and the means by which that will be accomplished. As it is, the Falklands do not have this, and without the historical context to fall upon, that’s a major deficiency that falls on the mission developer to fix.
You can of course fill the island with whatever units you want, from wherever, and in whichever density. Speaking for myself, I just don’t find the subject matter interesting enough to justify that effort when divorced of the historical context. I’m concerned this will be the next Normandy.
But your OK with a U.S. versus Iran scenario that also has no historical context? Other than us having been in the region for more than half a century…but it is still a leap of the imagination (at least until Monday - Bolton might have a bad weekend). I’m just curious why one area works for you but another doesn’t? I guess we’ll have to write you off for the Straits of Taiwan as well given the total hypothetical situation? I’m not trying to be a obtuse about it (even if I am), but I just can’t fathom why anyone can’t conceive of a Falklands scenario that works for them outside of 100% realism.
I may be the outlier here, but I purchased NTTR because provided a believable enough training environment. I bought Persian Gulf because it will provide interesting places to fly over. I did not buy Normandy because I am not interested in realistic WW2 scenarios, and it is basically a big flat map. I MAY purchase the South Atlantic map if the terrain is varied and interesting enough to warrant it.
Beach, I’m not trying to rile you up, but I am confused. In 1980s we fought multiple battles with Iranian forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Throughout the 1950s and 60s we similarly engaged, directly or indirectly, PLC forces in support of the ROC Regime in Taiwan, and in the 1990s we sailed a battle group through the straits to deter missile tests. I understand you’re speaking rhetorically, but it is not hard to imagine a scenario wherein either of these hot spots could have gone or might go hot. I don’t require 100% accuracy, but this sense of historical plausibility is greatly appreciated.
On the other hand I cannot imagine, and I’m trying rather hard as you’ve put me on blast here, a scenario where Russia has seriously or passingly threatened action against the Falklands, or would have been in a position to threaten action against those islands. There was talk in the last few years of an Argentinian arms deal where they were looking to purchase the J-10, but last I heard that had been scuttled do to the intransigence of the De Kirchner government. Perhaps we’re speaking at different topics here.
I think we are speaking of different topics. I see DCS World as an empty canvas for pretty much anything whereas you prefer historical and platform accuracy. It’s the same as people being OK with FC3 fidelity vs people that do want every switch and system modeled. I simply have no problems fighting a war over Tanoa or Iran or the Falklands - they all work in my mind. The only DLC I don’t particularly care for is pre-Korea stuff…(but I’ve still ended up buying some of it).
and that’s fine. I tried to delineate in my posts what was my opinion, and the justifications for those opinions. Apparently I was not successful. Ultimately however, they are only my opinion, and we know how the saying about those goes
I’d really like for Razbam or someone to start pumping out not just Falkland units, but any British and Argentine units to really make the theater pop, but I don’t see that right now. I’m looking forward to the day my opinion is changed.
One other thing about a Falklands map is that it’s is “relatively” simple and smallish… A great thing when it’s your first attempt using new development tools
I would love to see a historically accurate Falklands War of -82 campaign, in DCS!
This is a monumental step in that direction…
But a modern day fictional scenario would also be a lot of fun.
Or, what about a fictional WWII scenario?
That part of the world saw some naval action…
For me personally plausibility is important. I don’t mind fictional scenarios, in fact they are often more interesting that strict historical ones (for example classic NATO-WP). But they need to be plausible. They could have happened, with forces that were actually put in place and trained to fight them. When I create fictional missions, I as much as possible use period correct ORBATs (I consider these semi-historical).
I cannot think of a plausible scenario where anyone with the units we have available in DCS would fight over the Falklands. That doesn’t mean I won’t be making scenarios where the USMC is going to make an amphibious assault on Russian occupied Stanley. In DCS it has mostly been a necessity to make up wild stuff, because that is all we get, and I will continue to use what we have available. But that doesn’t change that I would rather prefer plausible scenarios.
The elephant in the room in regards to this theater is the 1982 Falklands War but unfortunately we miss most of the units involved. Using for example the AV-8B instead of the Sea Harrier or GR.3 is not attractive to me. They are about as similar as an Airbus A300 and an A330. Sure they look kind of the same and even share some fuselage elements. But they are basically different aircraft from a different generation.
Then, ofcourse, why would anyone make a Falklands scenery, if they weren’t thinking of the -82 conflict?
They must be.
I would guess that there are at least some plans of doing at least one flyable unit for that conflict.
But, as plans go, that may very well be all we get…
True. At least RAZBAM has plans for the Mirage III. Last time I heard they were looking at the Israeli version but perhaps they have changed this meanwhile to the Mirage IIIEA. In any case this would be an example where I would actually call the versions to be close enough.
Ironically, the Mirage III was the least effective Argentine combat aircraft of the war. After the first air-air missions on May 1, it was only used in decoy flights since it simply didn’t have the range to operate offensively over the Falklands. On May 1, one Mirage III was shot down by Sea Harrier and a second was downed by Argentine AAA while attempting an emergency landing at Stanley airfield due to low fuel state. Using afterburner and returning home were pretty much exclusive of each other, so the Mirage III was effectively withdrawn from combat.
The Good thing is Razbam already has Ai models of two thirds of your list ready to go. I have a sneaking suspicion that Razbam will also do an A-4 for DCS in adition the The Sea Harrier and the Gr.3. The Etendard will most like come as Ai only. Razbam previously did an entire A-4 series for FS9, so I know that Ron and Larry are big fans of the Scooter.
RAZBAM Simulations M2000c development team has always been aware about some of the community complaints about the DCS module not being complete or buggy, and the apparent “abandonment” of the product from us.
Well, we can finally make a public statement regarding this iconic aircraft in DCSW:
The Armée de l’Air Française’s Escadron de chasse 2/5 “Ile de France” has been reviewing the module and agreed with us to help in getting it as close as possible to the real aircraft within the realm of what can be made public.
Escadron de chasse 2/5 “Ile de France”'s pilots have flown the DCS module and while they are quite surprised about the accuracy of it, they have pointed out some issues that need to be corrected, curiously enough, most of them have nothing to do with public complains.
This collaboration has been running from some time, but it’s just now that we received clearance by the Armée de l’Air Française to make public such participation.As more authorization to reveal information on this mutual participation is given, more info will be posted.
You can visit Escadron de chasse 2/5 “Ile de France”'s Facebook page here: Escadron de Chasse 2/5 Ile de France | Orange
Can’t make heads or tail of the FB interface when it comes to linking a single post so… yep…
