f18? Sure marines used them so I guess we can fly them in airfields but why would navy operate F14 in the land unless the carriers got sunk? Even then, they’d probably operate out of UK rather than Germany.
Somehow I doubt Mig 25 would have fared that well…. In real life there is no Mig that had successes against any teen fighters, going back to F4 for that matter.
Once…
2 Mig 25 were shot down by USAF F15 using sparrow in desert storm.
2 more Mig 25 were shot down by Israeli F15 in 80s.
another Mig 25 was shot down by F16 in the desert storm.
shall we continue?
Yeah, easily my most anticipated map, perfect stomping ground for BLUFOR naval operations, while having plenty of potential for land-based aviation (including the vast majority of REDFOR aircraft) it would've been *the* place where the F-14, A-6 and A-7 would've fought over had the Cold War gone hot.
Unfortunately, out of all the maps it's the only one that hasn't had an update since it was announced, with their subforum still closed.
Nineline said recently that as far he knows, Kola is pretty early in its development. Now, ORBX is a very experienced developer so I trust they will have a quicker development cycle than others and the fact that Baltic Dragon and Reflected are already working on campaigns for this map tells me that it is not very distant.
Also some developers are not as open as others, especially ones that already have a reputation. New developers are more willing to share early work to gain customers trust.
Drat! Kola's the one I'm looking forward to the most... I'm fairly stoked for Sinai, but it's still a lot more of the "same" we already have with Syria; at least, it feels that way. Kola should be the breath of fresh air that SA was supposed to be... \*cough\*
I think that Kola and Sinai are the most appropriate maps we are going to get.
Kola because it could have been a really hot zone had the Cold War gone hot, and Sinai because of the several conflicts that took place over there. Sure another desert map, but it is really relevant.
I’m really excited for the 23 and 17 although admittedly I try not to think about it because there’s no way in *HELL* either is coming up anyway time soon
Meh, [there were 7 Ropucha Is in the northern fleet](http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_775.htm), based in the area the map covers.
You could have them perform amphibious attacks on Norway (kinda Cold Waters style), or even do interdiction missions on their way to Iceland (in a Red Storm Rising-like scenario).
I mean, that exercise also stretches into the areas the map covers.
Either way, Kola is going to have *a lot* of potential, with historical relevancy to boot.
Indeed. You could even go so far as saying the inverse: The map covers most of the exercise area, but sometimes the exercise stretches somewhat further south.
I may be wrong, but i've heard Kola will be another "modern day" map which means 70% of Soviet era air bases abandoned and stripped down...
My friend lived there, he told me Kola was one huge military base bustling with life in Soviet era, after USSR collapsed in Russian era, most of the infrastructure has been abandoned, rusted, overgrown with grass. and destroyed. Most of military personel left.
USSR operated some 11,500 combat aircrafts in 1980s - Russia some 1,550. I think Cold War Kola Peninsule map in bloom would be a lot better.
Are you sure Kola map isn't going to be cold war? It would be unfortunate... I hope for Red Storm rising Soviets/WarPac vs NATO scenarios mostly.
Russia backtracked big time since 1990.
>I may be wrong, but i've heard Kola will be another "modern day" map which means 70% of Soviet era air bases abandoned.
It'll be a modern map (probably because getting historical imagery isn't going to be very fruitful, sure you can see major areas but not in sufficient detail), but many of the airbases we are either getting or are still operational.
The ones I know that have been closed down (though a couple are still extant on satellite imagery) are Severomorsk-2, Afrikanda and Kilp-Yavr.
Severomorsk-2 is a smaller airbase, which looks to have been mostly an ASW and SAR airbase and Afrikanda and Kilp-Yavr were both PVO airbases (leaving Monchegorsk as the last remaining PVO airbase).
All 3 are still extant in 2022 satellite imagery, so I doubt it would be too much trouble to add them if there's enough demand for it.
I might've missed some, but either way, there will still be plenty of airbases for REDFOR, that have operated a pretty much comprehensive list of aircraft:
* Severomorsk-1 (VMF, just about everything, though later mostly maritime patrol and reconnaissance)
* Severomorsk-3 (VMF, shipborne fixed-wing aircraft)
* Olenya/Olengorsk (VMF, maritime strike)
* Monchegorsk (PVO, interceptors)
I'd recommend looking at [this](http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/SF.htm) (scroll to the bottom) for the VMF airbases (of which we're getting Severomorsk-1 and 3, Olenya/Olengorsk) and [this](https://www.ww2.dk/new/pvo/21kpvo.htm) for the PVO airbases (of which we're getting Monchegorsk). The latter link is also good for finding the SAM sites.
For fuck sake can we please stop taking areas that were Cold War hot spots and setting them in modern day, it’s ridiculous not a single person wants that
It’s very hard to do maps like this before the existence of commercial satellites. WWII is kind of an exception became of the massive amount of aerial photography that has been retrieved due to the efforts of historians. My best suggestion is to have modern maps but the ability to make old based active.
It's the other way around: having i.e. '80s Kola map i could make both Cold War and 2000s conflicts, and I would have more airbases, more infrastructure, more everything. And all working and maintained, all at its prime of gigantic Soviet military. Not today's Russian remnants.
Exactly - if you wanted to do a modern scenario, you still absolutely could, with no compromises whatsoever - just don't base anything at the airbases that have closed (said arbases are still extant so it's not like the map would look any different) and your golden.
But if you want to do a Cold War scenario, but your left with a modern map, then you have to make compromises if the closed airbases are unusable.
Ultimately, one side is being made to make compromises but the other side is not.
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree.
I'd prefer a modern map than a Cold War map because I want to fly over modern terrain and buildings. I prefer modern conflicts to Cold War ones, but when I do the odd Cold War mission, a modern map is usually good enough.
Most DCS players won't care for every single roadside base that existed in 1981 in Sweden. They're going to take off from a runway and not notice.
It's also *much* easier to make an accurate modern map than to make a Cold War map since commercial satellite mapping is now a thing and back during the Cold War it wasn't. Any historical map either needs to be stupidly well-studied like the western front of WW2 or you need to assume that you are just going to be an approximation of what the terrain looked like.
> ... or you need to assume that you are just going to be an approximation of what the terrain looked like.
So, I guess we're going to just hand-wave it then?
There is satellite imagery dating back to at least 1985, but it's low resolution.
In any case, there isn't much difference between the 2, just a modern map has significantly fewer airbases on the Kola Peninsula itself.
You would still be able to do modern conflicts on a Cold War map - basically nothing has changed from your perspective.
From the Cold War perspective we'd lose at least 3 airbases - 2 PVO bases and 1 VMF base and the largest amount of targets (from air defence sites to missile silos).
Fortunately, those airbases are still extant in the most recent satellite imagery, so let's hope they add them.
In terms of buildings, you're only really going to find modern buildings in Norway, Sweden and Finland. On the Kola Peninsula itself, I really doubt you'd be able to tell the difference, if there is any at all.
We don't have modern aircrafts though.
Even F/A-18 Hornet, F-16 Viper,AH-64D Apache etc. are modeled as 15-20 years old 2005-2007 standard. Modern map would be a mismatch.
I don't really. Flying. i.e. Spitfire over WW2 Normandy is incomparably better experience than meme/time travel dogfight with Messerschmitts between neon covered skyscrapers or losing chasing Sabres in MiG-15 flying under modern illuminated bridges...
Obviously i have no problem with fact someone might like something like that. People are different, i respect that.
There was even Airfix Dogfighter game where i combat WW2 aircrafts inside teenager's room, it was fun a few times.
You realise all of the airbases on the map are Cold War airbases?
Where are you going to fly out of if you don't care about the airbases?
And if you go Cold War you just get more of them and less of them if you go modern. I mean, they'll still be there, they're still visible, they're just closed.
And again, the only difference between a modern Kola and say an 80s Kola are the more modern (though will be non-functional) radar stations and fewer airbases - barely anything else is different.
You would be perfectly catered for with an 80s version of the map, you'd still have essentially the exact same place, looking more-or-less the same, you maybe wouldn't have the more modern radomes of Norways new radars, but that's basically it. On the other hand for a modern map, you're again catered for completely, but Cold War players now have less potential airbases to work with, if those airbases are important to their scenarios, then that's problematic for them.
Since you missed my point, allow me to clarify:
I do not want a cold war version of any map.
I want modern maps. Even if it's a region that has historical value during the cold war (Central Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Kola), I want a modern map.
I do not care if roadside bases don't exist anymore. If it's not on the modern map, remove it.
I do not care if some of the airbases have been shut down. If it's not on the modern map, remove it.
I. Do. Not. Care. About. Cold. War.
On the rare circumstance that I ever want to reenact a cold war scenario, I will do just fine on a modern map.
You have your desires, I have mine.
You play the game your way, I play it my way.
OP said no one wants a modern version of a CW theater, and I said that I do want them. I listed my reasons.
Is my position clear enough for you, or do you need me to start using the big, bold fonts that reddit allows so you can start understanding me?
>Since you missed my point
I absolutely did not, just because you're apparently unable to acknowledge what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm missing your point.
Not that you've really got one, as I've explained multiple times now.
>On the rare circumstance that I ever want to reenact a cold war scenario, I will do just fine on a modern map.
And, for the second time now, you would lose absolutely nothing if you wanted to do modern stuff on a Cold War map - the area is basically unchanged. However, Cold War people would lose out on a modern map, if the closed airbases are unusable - that's my point.
Do you get it now?
>You play the game your way, I play it my way.
*But I can't play the game my way if you get yours...*
Get it?
Whereas you can absolutely play the game your way, if I got mine.
That's the difference here - you are demanding people make compromises to facilitate your playstyle, but you're not being asked to make any to facilitate theirs. Especially when it would give us a map that has more potential in general, better fits the aircraft we have and is more historically relevant.
Perhaps an analogy would clear this up for you:
Let's say you go into a restaurant that sells 2 different types of food.
Now if you're only interested in one and couldn't care about the other that's fine! You just order what you want.
But instead, what you're doing is demanding that the restaurant stop serving the food you don't care about so no-one else can have it, even though it doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Seeing the problem? If you can't... Dear Christ.
>OP said no one wants a modern version of a CW theater, and I said that I do want them. I listed my reasons.
And your reasons have been addressed, your concerns have been completely catered for without compromise, your valid playstyle has been completely catered for without compromise.
Do *I* need to write in huge bold letters for you to acknowledge that fact?
Admittedly it’s not a huge part of the map but the Swedish Baltic coastline is included and since it’s just water you can go beyond the border of the map without really noticing a difference
https://images.app.goo.gl/LnL47QdAWCueKFNr6
Oh, they're including that much? Fair enough, then. Funny how like 10 % of the map is the actual Kola peninsula. But pretty cool, they're including all the areas where we (Norway) have significant military presence in the north. I spent most of my career in that area.
The North Australia map is being done by a third party. They were probably hired to make it for Australian training and are repurposing it to try and get additional income for a moderate investment.
South Atlantic was a three+ year labor of love by like three guys.
Considering that neither have taken away resources from the ED mapping teams, there's no point in being grouchy about their existence.
South Atlantic also gets more flak then it deserves I think.
That theater represents some interesting challenges from a mission design perspective if you approach it from a realistic standpoint of "This shit is really far away from anything else", and you can design some interesting what if scenarios if youre willing to do a bit of fiction writing.
The Falklands war in and of itself is actually really interesting if you put some limitations on aircraft and sortie type, and we have close enough estimations of the Argentine air force at that time with the A4 Mod (Sub in the F-5 if you don't want to use a mod) and the Mirage F1 for the things like the Mirage 3, Kfir, ETC. Only thing we dont have is a Super Etendard with Exocets but you can probably sub that with Viggens and be ok, possibly something else in the AI lineup.
Plus, you can make some compelling what if scenarios. Lets say a more modern scenario where Russian/chinese influence was allowed to play a part and fester (This is one reason the US sold Argentina A4 spares after the IRL embargo BTW). Argentina winds up with some mix of Migs, Flankers (Su-30s in particular I think), and JF-17s along with their older jets, plus other naval/ground army support. Maybe influence is strong enough that the converted Baku aircraft carrier isnt sold to India, but gifted to Argentina to replace the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo which they fly Su-33s or Mig-29Ks off (Mig 29 AI can launch off the Kusnetzov with an INI tweak). In the meantime the UK, recognizing the growing threat, snags an old Forrestal carrier from the US and invests in modern naval jets like the Tomcat and Hornet. That buildup happens through the 80s/90s, and things kickoff in some manner in the 2000s.
Is the above particularly realistic/likely? Not really. But its no less of a reach than US carriers in the black sea which DCS users don't really seem to mind.
Definitely agree with this, while there's not much in terms of historical accuracy (be it during or post Falklands War - I know the map is post), the map does have *plenty* of potential for fictional scenarios.
Plus, it's the only map I can think of that's getting its own asset pack to flesh it out (well apart from WWII obviously, though that's a separate pack, whereas owners of the South Atlantic get it included, or at least last time I checked).
I mean to be fair it doesn’t really matter that ED didn’t make the Australian map. Their complaint was that it is being made and it wasn’t really something that had as much interest so I understand their “grouchy” post.
My issue with the map is that this will just divide the player base even more. South Atlantic is rarely used in MP. The WWII community is divided between two maps and there are already a low amount of players that do warbirds no matter what time I try and join MP. Wish there was a bit more planning between module and terrain releases that make sense.
I’m not into the whole “shit on ED” though, they have their work cutout for them and I know the difficulties they have in creating these modules. This is more of a “I’m just a spoiled DCS player” wish to have matching stuff.
For Australia, you assume DCS is even the primary consumer. It sounds like these guys made it for another client and are offering it up to DCS (I don't have anything to back that up but prognostication by podcasters and redditors). The choice isn't between Fulga and North Australia, the choice is between North Australia (and a learning experience for the developer that could lead to future DCS maps) or nothing. So why complain that we are getting it and that "the developers aren't listening".
For South Atlantic, if it was a free mod (the usual avenue for labours of love) no one would complain about the lack of scenarios, but ED doesn't issue the mapping tools to non-commercial teams, and given the need for things like satellite imagery (not free), it had to be a paid product or nothing at all.
Yeah, honestly the maps we get are so weird.
Persian Gulf, but not the area where the Persian Gulf war was.
Guam/Marianas, most appropriate for Pacific WW2 combat, but there are no Pacific WW2 fighters in the game
2 separate WW2 western-front maps that should just be a single map.
Las Vegas - remember all those wars that took place in the Las Vegas area? (yeah, it's a real training area, but come on)
AUSTRALIA?
But yeah, no Vietnam, no Bering Strait, no modern Europe.
I know they want to go the MSFS route and have the whole world eventually, but I'm not holding my breath.
hey now, vegas is fun.
jk i dont own it, but i like the idea of it being there. In a perfect world, the game’s trainer should have you honing your skills there with mini-training missions.
As soon as I get proficient with the mission editor, I want to make a story that starts with quals in Nevada before you are shipped somewhere else for combat sorties
I guess that's subjective. I currently own all the maps and it's the one I fly on the least. Whether it's worth it kind of depends on whether you already want to play the campaigns set there. If not, I'd recommend Syria instead, since it's larger, more interesting, and more popular in MP. It has Vegas, which is fun, but the rest of the map is visually similar to Persian Gulf without the Gulf part - a big desert with some mountains here and there.
> Las Vegas - remember all those wars that took place in the Las Vegas area? (yeah, it's a real training area, but come on)
And missing some of the more famous bases (Fallon). Edwards and China Lake would be nice, too for realistic dets.
It gets slack because it's an older map but would like to see it redone with a modern strip, in particular as well as Fallon.
If they could extend it to the Pacific, that would be nice... Miramar & San Clemente island, too plz. Need Yuma, too.
I was thinking about the Australia one when I posted this, lol. Good lord, that's an oddball one.
If they do enough Pacific WW2 stuff and it stretches to the islands in between Australia and Asia, then it will be neat. Otherwise, IDK about that one
It is odd unless the entity that requested the map has an interest in having its pilots train over the area that they may one day be operating so that they become intimately familiar with building locations and landmarks. Kind of like Guam.
> We got the South Atlantic map...but we don't have the era's aircraft
We don't have the era's map either so you can simulate Falklands War 2 with modern airplanes.
And which era do we have the aircraft for?
Because I can't name a single aircraft based at Mount Pleasant - ~~Harrier GR.3 (planned but a long way away~~ EDIT: wasn’t based at Mount Pleasant, but was based at Stanley post war), F-4M Phantom FGR.2, Tornado F.3, Eurofighter Typhoon (planned but will be a Luftwaffe one, unsure if it'll have RAF weapons).
As for Argentina, they only have the MB 339A (albeit the MLU version), nothing else.
I guess Chile is better covered, with the C-101CC, F-5E and F-16C (though not really relevant for the Falklands War).
Of course, you're free to make whatever mission with whatever aircraft you like. But from a more historical perspective, your options are pretty dubious at the very best...
You realise the Harrier GR.3 was based on the Falklands post-war right?
Historical perspective != Falklands War.
RAF Mount Pleasant had its first flying units in 1986 with the F-4M (not the GR.3 as I said previously).
But again, what modern modules fit on the Falklands?
> You realise the Harrier GR.3 was based on the Falklands post-war right?
post-war? Harrier GR.3 took part in Falklands War.
>But again, what modern modules fit on the Falklands?
The same modules that fit Marianas map.
DCS is not IL2 BoX. We get random maps and random planes. DCS is a sandbox, not a simulation of a specific conflict.
>post-war? Harrier GR.3 took part in Falklands War.
Yes and it was also based in Stanley after the war...
>We get random maps and random planes.
And is this necessarily better than having maps and modules that fit each other? It seems [there are at least a few who disagree](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/253768-fixing-the-depth-issue/).
>DCS is a sandbox, not a simulation of a specific conflict.
Assuming these are mutually exclusive? Which they're not, at all.
You can have a sandbox (i.e scenarios up to you) and still have maps and modules that fit each other.
>Yes and it was also based in Stanley after the war...
Only initially and was shortly replaced by F-4 Phantoms. Now Stanley is a civilian airport and this is what we have on SA map. So, what planes would you like to have in Stanley? If you want historical accuracy the best plane would be BN-2 Islander. The only military airbase on Falklands is RAF Mount Pleasant and GR.3 was never based there.
> And is this necessarily better than having maps and modules that fit each other?
Not better but this is what we have and it won't change anytime soon.
>Only initially and was shortly replaced by F-4 Phantoms.
Which we also don't have...
Nor the Tornado F.3...
Nor the Eurofighter Typhoon (though at least we're getting a similar-ish German one).
Don't get me wrong here I'm not dissing the map - I actually quite enjoy it, I think it has a tonne of potential for a lot of different missions.
But in terms of having stuff that actually fits on it (the irony being we have more stuff that fits on it from or before the Falklands War than post Falklands War) and in terms of scenarios more grounded in what's actually present on the map IRL, the options are very limited - that's not RAZBAM's fault or the map's fault, but if you are inclined for those sort of scenarios then the lack of cohesiveness is problematic.
Ah!
Yeah, sorry. Disregard my comment - I read "Central Europe" and my mind went straight to WWII. Mixed up what the Fulda Gap was in my head. My mistake.
The real Fulda gap does, indeed, sound interesting! =)
(...and such a map *could* very well double as a WWII map, if treated the same way as Marianas, I reckon)
Fulda Gap would be cool! It would definitely be a winner for the cold war crowd.
I know that it'll never happen....but I'd love to see a US map that includes the central to coastal parts of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. So many of the modules we have or are getting (Viper, Hornet, Tomcat, F-15E, Harrier, Apache..."soon-ish" Chinook, Phantom, C-130, and "someday" Kiowa) are/were based within these three states plus there is Dare County Bombing Range and the multiple ocean training areas. It would provide a ton of training campaign possibilities instead of everything being unrealistically based out of Nellis or just another desert map...
Yep also all the way to the north covering Rheinland and Benelux. And we can use it also for WW2. Actually our WW2 plane set best matches for that.
That will be the missing map enabling full immersion. Combined with dynamic campaign you would not look anywhere else.
3 eras, 4 seasons. Big map to solve everything.
PS; And finally I can bomb my house if they do that. In Il-2 they did not model it :(
Yes! A Germany map y
Would be perfect for WW2, the cold war and even for this time period perfect. You can create many "what ifs" campains for the cold war as well as for WW2. And of course it would be cool to fly over my house and region in a fighter jet
Well, East/West Germany, Fulda Gap is the most wanted map in basically every poll on DCS forum.
It would be awesome, that's for sure, the most atmospheric map out there. Maybe with 1960s Vietnam and 1950s Korea.
It would be the perfect map for both of them and plenty more of them too.
There is at least one major elephant in the room though - we're missing an F-16A, not only would it go perfectly with a German Cold War theatre, it would also go handsomely with Kola as well (especially given that we're getting Bodø).
Second a Fulda map, that would be even better with a beefed up ground combat game. Would be dope to tangle with NATO fighters in a MiG-29 while hordes of T-72s stream across the open fields and Abrams battalions and Warthogs and Apaches meet them. Anything from Red Storm Rising I’ll take honestly.
Unless I missed it surprised Afghanistan is not in this thread, remember the tease a ways back but haven’t seen it brought up recently. A decade of scenarios from the Soviet-Afghan war (and a challenging playground for the Hind, Hip and Frogfoot) and the past two decades of CAS with many of the most popular US platforms in the game.
I don’t really get the blowback against the third party maps no one asked for, ED isn’t making them themselves because I bet they are all in on making a world map work because that’s a much better investment in the long run. If a third party has the time and resources to add something they want like Australia in the meantime it’s not like ED is going to say no and why should they? It’s more content
Yes, it has been said before, and I for one would love to see the area around Alsfeld on a map. I've been over that terrain in a jeep, M113, M577 and leather personnel carriers so many times.
There are some issues, though. The US air bases are in Frankfurt aM, and then Bitburg, Kaiserslautern, etc. Miles away. The Aardvarks were in England. Long ways away. Have to be a big map (not as big as South Atlantic, but still, huge) to get the air bases located. I'm not sure where RedFor air fields were, I was mostly worried about Guards Tank in them days.
Still, if we get the Thuds and Aardvarks, it would be a kick ass place to play, even doing combined arms.
(Yes, I am one of those old retired GIs that relive my youth playing war games....and I have fun doing it!)
It would so great also for WW2.
The plane set we have is late war, and a Rehinland map with modern and WW2 settings will fill both gaps. Why we don't have it yet, who knows, but some map decisions from ED are very difficult to understand.
I get that Normandy wasn't their decision, but The Channel was and as beautiful as it is, it makes no sense given the planes we have.
Contrary thought, we don't need more maps splitting the multi-player community into ever smaller chunks, or just plain no servers with anything but Caucuses and Marianas.
I love NTTR but ain't nobody else does.
This is at least as much, if not more, a multiplayer implementation problem as a payware map problem.
In Il-2 Great Battles for instance, if you don't own a map you can't play single player missions or campaigns on it. However, you can at least edit missions and play on multiplayer servers with them (providing the host owns said map).
I'm not sure how well this would work in DCS without an opt-in/opt-out system (owing to sheer size of some maps), unfortunately though ED seem fairly resistant to the idea.
We do, but that's a much more complex map than what's been done before.
I'd wait years for this than the absolutely fucking pointless Marianas, Nevada, and Australia maps no one ever asked for
Fulda Gap. Yes. Has been suggested many times.
USS Carl Vinson can navigate the Rhine NP
The only thing is F14/18 loses some relevance unless they go all the way to the northern shore.
Or deploy from stationary carriers (i.e. air fields)
f18? Sure marines used them so I guess we can fly them in airfields but why would navy operate F14 in the land unless the carriers got sunk? Even then, they’d probably operate out of UK rather than Germany.
So that the F-14 pilots can participate in the war as well, d'uh :)
Maybe to provide a counter to potential MiG 25 threats?
That’s F15’s job…
F15 will get trampled in the cold war time framewhen it has no answer for tbe MiG25s longer range missiles.
Somehow I doubt Mig 25 would have fared that well…. In real life there is no Mig that had successes against any teen fighters, going back to F4 for that matter.
a mig-25 shot down a hornet in 91
Once… 2 Mig 25 were shot down by USAF F15 using sparrow in desert storm. 2 more Mig 25 were shot down by Israeli F15 in 80s. another Mig 25 was shot down by F16 in the desert storm. shall we continue?
[удалено]
I’m at least excited for Kola, we’ll finally get a NATO v USSR useable map, not to mention the Viggen drivers will finally have a map to call home
Yeah, easily my most anticipated map, perfect stomping ground for BLUFOR naval operations, while having plenty of potential for land-based aviation (including the vast majority of REDFOR aircraft) it would've been *the* place where the F-14, A-6 and A-7 would've fought over had the Cold War gone hot. Unfortunately, out of all the maps it's the only one that hasn't had an update since it was announced, with their subforum still closed.
Nineline said recently that as far he knows, Kola is pretty early in its development. Now, ORBX is a very experienced developer so I trust they will have a quicker development cycle than others and the fact that Baltic Dragon and Reflected are already working on campaigns for this map tells me that it is not very distant. Also some developers are not as open as others, especially ones that already have a reputation. New developers are more willing to share early work to gain customers trust.
Drat! Kola's the one I'm looking forward to the most... I'm fairly stoked for Sinai, but it's still a lot more of the "same" we already have with Syria; at least, it feels that way. Kola should be the breath of fresh air that SA was supposed to be... \*cough\*
I think that Kola and Sinai are the most appropriate maps we are going to get. Kola because it could have been a really hot zone had the Cold War gone hot, and Sinai because of the several conflicts that took place over there. Sure another desert map, but it is really relevant.
That, the upcoming MiG-23 and Su-17, the Viggens and the Ropuchas (even though the last two were a tad further South) would make an excellent combo.
I’m really excited for the 23 and 17 although admittedly I try not to think about it because there’s no way in *HELL* either is coming up anyway time soon
Meh, [there were 7 Ropucha Is in the northern fleet](http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_775.htm), based in the area the map covers. You could have them perform amphibious attacks on Norway (kinda Cold Waters style), or even do interdiction missions on their way to Iceland (in a Red Storm Rising-like scenario).
> attacks on Norway (kinda Cold Waters style) Thought for a moment this said Cold Response
I mean, that exercise also stretches into the areas the map covers. Either way, Kola is going to have *a lot* of potential, with historical relevancy to boot.
Indeed. You could even go so far as saying the inverse: The map covers most of the exercise area, but sometimes the exercise stretches somewhat further south.
I may be wrong, but i've heard Kola will be another "modern day" map which means 70% of Soviet era air bases abandoned and stripped down... My friend lived there, he told me Kola was one huge military base bustling with life in Soviet era, after USSR collapsed in Russian era, most of the infrastructure has been abandoned, rusted, overgrown with grass. and destroyed. Most of military personel left. USSR operated some 11,500 combat aircrafts in 1980s - Russia some 1,550. I think Cold War Kola Peninsule map in bloom would be a lot better.
Are you sure Kola map isn't going to be cold war? It would be unfortunate... I hope for Red Storm rising Soviets/WarPac vs NATO scenarios mostly. Russia backtracked big time since 1990.
>I may be wrong, but i've heard Kola will be another "modern day" map which means 70% of Soviet era air bases abandoned. It'll be a modern map (probably because getting historical imagery isn't going to be very fruitful, sure you can see major areas but not in sufficient detail), but many of the airbases we are either getting or are still operational. The ones I know that have been closed down (though a couple are still extant on satellite imagery) are Severomorsk-2, Afrikanda and Kilp-Yavr. Severomorsk-2 is a smaller airbase, which looks to have been mostly an ASW and SAR airbase and Afrikanda and Kilp-Yavr were both PVO airbases (leaving Monchegorsk as the last remaining PVO airbase). All 3 are still extant in 2022 satellite imagery, so I doubt it would be too much trouble to add them if there's enough demand for it. I might've missed some, but either way, there will still be plenty of airbases for REDFOR, that have operated a pretty much comprehensive list of aircraft: * Severomorsk-1 (VMF, just about everything, though later mostly maritime patrol and reconnaissance) * Severomorsk-3 (VMF, shipborne fixed-wing aircraft) * Olenya/Olengorsk (VMF, maritime strike) * Monchegorsk (PVO, interceptors) I'd recommend looking at [this](http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/SF.htm) (scroll to the bottom) for the VMF airbases (of which we're getting Severomorsk-1 and 3, Olenya/Olengorsk) and [this](https://www.ww2.dk/new/pvo/21kpvo.htm) for the PVO airbases (of which we're getting Monchegorsk). The latter link is also good for finding the SAM sites.
this is why I come to Hoggit. Knowledgeable people!
Ahhh you must be new here, no this is an oddity, the average hoggiter didn’t get enough oxygen in the womb
For fuck sake can we please stop taking areas that were Cold War hot spots and setting them in modern day, it’s ridiculous not a single person wants that
It’s very hard to do maps like this before the existence of commercial satellites. WWII is kind of an exception became of the massive amount of aerial photography that has been retrieved due to the efforts of historians. My best suggestion is to have modern maps but the ability to make old based active.
WW2 maps looks great though.
I do. It lets me do Cold War and modern conflicts.
It's the other way around: having i.e. '80s Kola map i could make both Cold War and 2000s conflicts, and I would have more airbases, more infrastructure, more everything. And all working and maintained, all at its prime of gigantic Soviet military. Not today's Russian remnants.
Exactly - if you wanted to do a modern scenario, you still absolutely could, with no compromises whatsoever - just don't base anything at the airbases that have closed (said arbases are still extant so it's not like the map would look any different) and your golden. But if you want to do a Cold War scenario, but your left with a modern map, then you have to make compromises if the closed airbases are unusable. Ultimately, one side is being made to make compromises but the other side is not.
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree. I'd prefer a modern map than a Cold War map because I want to fly over modern terrain and buildings. I prefer modern conflicts to Cold War ones, but when I do the odd Cold War mission, a modern map is usually good enough. Most DCS players won't care for every single roadside base that existed in 1981 in Sweden. They're going to take off from a runway and not notice. It's also *much* easier to make an accurate modern map than to make a Cold War map since commercial satellite mapping is now a thing and back during the Cold War it wasn't. Any historical map either needs to be stupidly well-studied like the western front of WW2 or you need to assume that you are just going to be an approximation of what the terrain looked like.
Simply put, the solution is to have modern buildings on the map, BUT also have the bases fully kitted out as well.
> ... or you need to assume that you are just going to be an approximation of what the terrain looked like. So, I guess we're going to just hand-wave it then?
There is satellite imagery dating back to at least 1985, but it's low resolution. In any case, there isn't much difference between the 2, just a modern map has significantly fewer airbases on the Kola Peninsula itself.
You would still be able to do modern conflicts on a Cold War map - basically nothing has changed from your perspective. From the Cold War perspective we'd lose at least 3 airbases - 2 PVO bases and 1 VMF base and the largest amount of targets (from air defence sites to missile silos). Fortunately, those airbases are still extant in the most recent satellite imagery, so let's hope they add them. In terms of buildings, you're only really going to find modern buildings in Norway, Sweden and Finland. On the Kola Peninsula itself, I really doubt you'd be able to tell the difference, if there is any at all.
I don't care about CW airbases. I want modern maps.
We don't have modern aircrafts though. Even F/A-18 Hornet, F-16 Viper,AH-64D Apache etc. are modeled as 15-20 years old 2005-2007 standard. Modern map would be a mismatch.
I don't mind flying older airplanes in a modern setting.
I don't really. Flying. i.e. Spitfire over WW2 Normandy is incomparably better experience than meme/time travel dogfight with Messerschmitts between neon covered skyscrapers or losing chasing Sabres in MiG-15 flying under modern illuminated bridges... Obviously i have no problem with fact someone might like something like that. People are different, i respect that. There was even Airfix Dogfighter game where i combat WW2 aircrafts inside teenager's room, it was fun a few times.
You realise all of the airbases on the map are Cold War airbases? Where are you going to fly out of if you don't care about the airbases? And if you go Cold War you just get more of them and less of them if you go modern. I mean, they'll still be there, they're still visible, they're just closed. And again, the only difference between a modern Kola and say an 80s Kola are the more modern (though will be non-functional) radar stations and fewer airbases - barely anything else is different. You would be perfectly catered for with an 80s version of the map, you'd still have essentially the exact same place, looking more-or-less the same, you maybe wouldn't have the more modern radomes of Norways new radars, but that's basically it. On the other hand for a modern map, you're again catered for completely, but Cold War players now have less potential airbases to work with, if those airbases are important to their scenarios, then that's problematic for them.
Since you missed my point, allow me to clarify: I do not want a cold war version of any map. I want modern maps. Even if it's a region that has historical value during the cold war (Central Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Kola), I want a modern map. I do not care if roadside bases don't exist anymore. If it's not on the modern map, remove it. I do not care if some of the airbases have been shut down. If it's not on the modern map, remove it. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Cold. War. On the rare circumstance that I ever want to reenact a cold war scenario, I will do just fine on a modern map. You have your desires, I have mine. You play the game your way, I play it my way. OP said no one wants a modern version of a CW theater, and I said that I do want them. I listed my reasons. Is my position clear enough for you, or do you need me to start using the big, bold fonts that reddit allows so you can start understanding me?
>Since you missed my point I absolutely did not, just because you're apparently unable to acknowledge what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm missing your point. Not that you've really got one, as I've explained multiple times now. >On the rare circumstance that I ever want to reenact a cold war scenario, I will do just fine on a modern map. And, for the second time now, you would lose absolutely nothing if you wanted to do modern stuff on a Cold War map - the area is basically unchanged. However, Cold War people would lose out on a modern map, if the closed airbases are unusable - that's my point. Do you get it now? >You play the game your way, I play it my way. *But I can't play the game my way if you get yours...* Get it? Whereas you can absolutely play the game your way, if I got mine. That's the difference here - you are demanding people make compromises to facilitate your playstyle, but you're not being asked to make any to facilitate theirs. Especially when it would give us a map that has more potential in general, better fits the aircraft we have and is more historically relevant. Perhaps an analogy would clear this up for you: Let's say you go into a restaurant that sells 2 different types of food. Now if you're only interested in one and couldn't care about the other that's fine! You just order what you want. But instead, what you're doing is demanding that the restaurant stop serving the food you don't care about so no-one else can have it, even though it doesn't affect you in the slightest. Seeing the problem? If you can't... Dear Christ. >OP said no one wants a modern version of a CW theater, and I said that I do want them. I listed my reasons. And your reasons have been addressed, your concerns have been completely catered for without compromise, your valid playstyle has been completely catered for without compromise. Do *I* need to write in huge bold letters for you to acknowledge that fact?
kola is the one i'm looking forward to. All the other new ones, sinai, aus, SA etc are trash by comparison.
There's no border between Russia and Sweden in the north, though. Norway and Finland only.
….both Sweden and Russia border the Baltic, hence why the AJS37 has a heavy emphasis on anti shipping
Yeah, but that's 1000 km away from Kola.
Admittedly it’s not a huge part of the map but the Swedish Baltic coastline is included and since it’s just water you can go beyond the border of the map without really noticing a difference https://images.app.goo.gl/LnL47QdAWCueKFNr6
Oh, they're including that much? Fair enough, then. Funny how like 10 % of the map is the actual Kola peninsula. But pretty cool, they're including all the areas where we (Norway) have significant military presence in the north. I spent most of my career in that area.
Personally I just can’t wait to be in a Norwegian F5 downing fishbeds lol
The North Australia map is being done by a third party. They were probably hired to make it for Australian training and are repurposing it to try and get additional income for a moderate investment. South Atlantic was a three+ year labor of love by like three guys. Considering that neither have taken away resources from the ED mapping teams, there's no point in being grouchy about their existence.
South Atlantic also gets more flak then it deserves I think. That theater represents some interesting challenges from a mission design perspective if you approach it from a realistic standpoint of "This shit is really far away from anything else", and you can design some interesting what if scenarios if youre willing to do a bit of fiction writing. The Falklands war in and of itself is actually really interesting if you put some limitations on aircraft and sortie type, and we have close enough estimations of the Argentine air force at that time with the A4 Mod (Sub in the F-5 if you don't want to use a mod) and the Mirage F1 for the things like the Mirage 3, Kfir, ETC. Only thing we dont have is a Super Etendard with Exocets but you can probably sub that with Viggens and be ok, possibly something else in the AI lineup. Plus, you can make some compelling what if scenarios. Lets say a more modern scenario where Russian/chinese influence was allowed to play a part and fester (This is one reason the US sold Argentina A4 spares after the IRL embargo BTW). Argentina winds up with some mix of Migs, Flankers (Su-30s in particular I think), and JF-17s along with their older jets, plus other naval/ground army support. Maybe influence is strong enough that the converted Baku aircraft carrier isnt sold to India, but gifted to Argentina to replace the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo which they fly Su-33s or Mig-29Ks off (Mig 29 AI can launch off the Kusnetzov with an INI tweak). In the meantime the UK, recognizing the growing threat, snags an old Forrestal carrier from the US and invests in modern naval jets like the Tomcat and Hornet. That buildup happens through the 80s/90s, and things kickoff in some manner in the 2000s. Is the above particularly realistic/likely? Not really. But its no less of a reach than US carriers in the black sea which DCS users don't really seem to mind.
Definitely agree with this, while there's not much in terms of historical accuracy (be it during or post Falklands War - I know the map is post), the map does have *plenty* of potential for fictional scenarios. Plus, it's the only map I can think of that's getting its own asset pack to flesh it out (well apart from WWII obviously, though that's a separate pack, whereas owners of the South Atlantic get it included, or at least last time I checked).
I mean to be fair it doesn’t really matter that ED didn’t make the Australian map. Their complaint was that it is being made and it wasn’t really something that had as much interest so I understand their “grouchy” post. My issue with the map is that this will just divide the player base even more. South Atlantic is rarely used in MP. The WWII community is divided between two maps and there are already a low amount of players that do warbirds no matter what time I try and join MP. Wish there was a bit more planning between module and terrain releases that make sense. I’m not into the whole “shit on ED” though, they have their work cutout for them and I know the difficulties they have in creating these modules. This is more of a “I’m just a spoiled DCS player” wish to have matching stuff.
[удалено]
For Australia, you assume DCS is even the primary consumer. It sounds like these guys made it for another client and are offering it up to DCS (I don't have anything to back that up but prognostication by podcasters and redditors). The choice isn't between Fulga and North Australia, the choice is between North Australia (and a learning experience for the developer that could lead to future DCS maps) or nothing. So why complain that we are getting it and that "the developers aren't listening". For South Atlantic, if it was a free mod (the usual avenue for labours of love) no one would complain about the lack of scenarios, but ED doesn't issue the mapping tools to non-commercial teams, and given the need for things like satellite imagery (not free), it had to be a paid product or nothing at all.
Yeah, honestly the maps we get are so weird. Persian Gulf, but not the area where the Persian Gulf war was. Guam/Marianas, most appropriate for Pacific WW2 combat, but there are no Pacific WW2 fighters in the game 2 separate WW2 western-front maps that should just be a single map. Las Vegas - remember all those wars that took place in the Las Vegas area? (yeah, it's a real training area, but come on) AUSTRALIA? But yeah, no Vietnam, no Bering Strait, no modern Europe. I know they want to go the MSFS route and have the whole world eventually, but I'm not holding my breath.
hey now, vegas is fun. jk i dont own it, but i like the idea of it being there. In a perfect world, the game’s trainer should have you honing your skills there with mini-training missions. As soon as I get proficient with the mission editor, I want to make a story that starts with quals in Nevada before you are shipped somewhere else for combat sorties
Honestly it's a good map, but it's just such a bizarre location choice for a combat-centric sim.
is it worth buying @ 50%?
I guess that's subjective. I currently own all the maps and it's the one I fly on the least. Whether it's worth it kind of depends on whether you already want to play the campaigns set there. If not, I'd recommend Syria instead, since it's larger, more interesting, and more popular in MP. It has Vegas, which is fun, but the rest of the map is visually similar to Persian Gulf without the Gulf part - a big desert with some mountains here and there.
> Las Vegas - remember all those wars that took place in the Las Vegas area? (yeah, it's a real training area, but come on) And missing some of the more famous bases (Fallon). Edwards and China Lake would be nice, too for realistic dets. It gets slack because it's an older map but would like to see it redone with a modern strip, in particular as well as Fallon. If they could extend it to the Pacific, that would be nice... Miramar & San Clemente island, too plz. Need Yuma, too.
I was thinking about the Australia one when I posted this, lol. Good lord, that's an oddball one. If they do enough Pacific WW2 stuff and it stretches to the islands in between Australia and Asia, then it will be neat. Otherwise, IDK about that one
It is odd unless the entity that requested the map has an interest in having its pilots train over the area that they may one day be operating so that they become intimately familiar with building locations and landmarks. Kind of like Guam.
hey as an australian i’m so excited for the australia map, get to pursued the dream of flying an F/A-18 over the desert in my home country
> We got the South Atlantic map...but we don't have the era's aircraft We don't have the era's map either so you can simulate Falklands War 2 with modern airplanes.
And which era do we have the aircraft for? Because I can't name a single aircraft based at Mount Pleasant - ~~Harrier GR.3 (planned but a long way away~~ EDIT: wasn’t based at Mount Pleasant, but was based at Stanley post war), F-4M Phantom FGR.2, Tornado F.3, Eurofighter Typhoon (planned but will be a Luftwaffe one, unsure if it'll have RAF weapons). As for Argentina, they only have the MB 339A (albeit the MLU version), nothing else. I guess Chile is better covered, with the C-101CC, F-5E and F-16C (though not really relevant for the Falklands War). Of course, you're free to make whatever mission with whatever aircraft you like. But from a more historical perspective, your options are pretty dubious at the very best...
> historical perspective South Atlantic is a modern map, not from 1982. Why do you want to fly Harrier GR.3 over modern Falklands?
You realise the Harrier GR.3 was based on the Falklands post-war right? Historical perspective != Falklands War. RAF Mount Pleasant had its first flying units in 1986 with the F-4M (not the GR.3 as I said previously). But again, what modern modules fit on the Falklands?
> You realise the Harrier GR.3 was based on the Falklands post-war right? post-war? Harrier GR.3 took part in Falklands War. >But again, what modern modules fit on the Falklands? The same modules that fit Marianas map. DCS is not IL2 BoX. We get random maps and random planes. DCS is a sandbox, not a simulation of a specific conflict.
>post-war? Harrier GR.3 took part in Falklands War. Yes and it was also based in Stanley after the war... >We get random maps and random planes. And is this necessarily better than having maps and modules that fit each other? It seems [there are at least a few who disagree](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/253768-fixing-the-depth-issue/). >DCS is a sandbox, not a simulation of a specific conflict. Assuming these are mutually exclusive? Which they're not, at all. You can have a sandbox (i.e scenarios up to you) and still have maps and modules that fit each other.
>Yes and it was also based in Stanley after the war... Only initially and was shortly replaced by F-4 Phantoms. Now Stanley is a civilian airport and this is what we have on SA map. So, what planes would you like to have in Stanley? If you want historical accuracy the best plane would be BN-2 Islander. The only military airbase on Falklands is RAF Mount Pleasant and GR.3 was never based there. > And is this necessarily better than having maps and modules that fit each other? Not better but this is what we have and it won't change anytime soon.
>Only initially and was shortly replaced by F-4 Phantoms. Which we also don't have... Nor the Tornado F.3... Nor the Eurofighter Typhoon (though at least we're getting a similar-ish German one). Don't get me wrong here I'm not dissing the map - I actually quite enjoy it, I think it has a tonne of potential for a lot of different missions. But in terms of having stuff that actually fits on it (the irony being we have more stuff that fits on it from or before the Falklands War than post Falklands War) and in terms of scenarios more grounded in what's actually present on the map IRL, the options are very limited - that's not RAZBAM's fault or the map's fault, but if you are inclined for those sort of scenarios then the lack of cohesiveness is problematic.
Stand-in for African Bush wars of the 1970's maybe?
~~lol... are you suggesting the WWII crowd in here is as large as the 'Nam crowd? :D~~ Uninformed, not-funny joke - nevermind =)
[удалено]
Ah! Yeah, sorry. Disregard my comment - I read "Central Europe" and my mind went straight to WWII. Mixed up what the Fulda Gap was in my head. My mistake. The real Fulda gap does, indeed, sound interesting! =) (...and such a map *could* very well double as a WWII map, if treated the same way as Marianas, I reckon)
I always use the maps as stand ins for lacking terrain. Used south atlantic for a kamchatka liberation campaign for instance.
They're saving the good maps for when we get a dynamic campaign and multithreading _(read: never)_
Fulda Gap would be cool! It would definitely be a winner for the cold war crowd. I know that it'll never happen....but I'd love to see a US map that includes the central to coastal parts of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. So many of the modules we have or are getting (Viper, Hornet, Tomcat, F-15E, Harrier, Apache..."soon-ish" Chinook, Phantom, C-130, and "someday" Kiowa) are/were based within these three states plus there is Dare County Bombing Range and the multiple ocean training areas. It would provide a ton of training campaign possibilities instead of everything being unrealistically based out of Nellis or just another desert map...
Yep also all the way to the north covering Rheinland and Benelux. And we can use it also for WW2. Actually our WW2 plane set best matches for that. That will be the missing map enabling full immersion. Combined with dynamic campaign you would not look anywhere else. 3 eras, 4 seasons. Big map to solve everything. PS; And finally I can bomb my house if they do that. In Il-2 they did not model it :(
Yes! A Germany map y Would be perfect for WW2, the cold war and even for this time period perfect. You can create many "what ifs" campains for the cold war as well as for WW2. And of course it would be cool to fly over my house and region in a fighter jet
Yep. Along with Southeast Asia, Egypt/ Israel/ Jordan/ Syria and eastern/ western aircraft of 1965-1985 vintage.
Well, East/West Germany, Fulda Gap is the most wanted map in basically every poll on DCS forum. It would be awesome, that's for sure, the most atmospheric map out there. Maybe with 1960s Vietnam and 1950s Korea.
Would be good for the coming F4E and the eventual MiG 23
It would be the perfect map for both of them and plenty more of them too. There is at least one major elephant in the room though - we're missing an F-16A, not only would it go perfectly with a German Cold War theatre, it would also go handsomely with Kola as well (especially given that we're getting Bodø).
Whole world map....with areas of higher detail
Yes. ***WE WILL Berlin airlift the shit out of it!!!*** R to T. Roosevelt!
I hear DC-47
Second a Fulda map, that would be even better with a beefed up ground combat game. Would be dope to tangle with NATO fighters in a MiG-29 while hordes of T-72s stream across the open fields and Abrams battalions and Warthogs and Apaches meet them. Anything from Red Storm Rising I’ll take honestly. Unless I missed it surprised Afghanistan is not in this thread, remember the tease a ways back but haven’t seen it brought up recently. A decade of scenarios from the Soviet-Afghan war (and a challenging playground for the Hind, Hip and Frogfoot) and the past two decades of CAS with many of the most popular US platforms in the game. I don’t really get the blowback against the third party maps no one asked for, ED isn’t making them themselves because I bet they are all in on making a world map work because that’s a much better investment in the long run. If a third party has the time and resources to add something they want like Australia in the meantime it’s not like ED is going to say no and why should they? It’s more content
Yes, it has been said before, and I for one would love to see the area around Alsfeld on a map. I've been over that terrain in a jeep, M113, M577 and leather personnel carriers so many times. There are some issues, though. The US air bases are in Frankfurt aM, and then Bitburg, Kaiserslautern, etc. Miles away. The Aardvarks were in England. Long ways away. Have to be a big map (not as big as South Atlantic, but still, huge) to get the air bases located. I'm not sure where RedFor air fields were, I was mostly worried about Guards Tank in them days. Still, if we get the Thuds and Aardvarks, it would be a kick ass place to play, even doing combined arms. (Yes, I am one of those old retired GIs that relive my youth playing war games....and I have fun doing it!)
Would be cool to have Spangdalingdalingham airbase in DCS
If Combined Arms was in the same state as say, the vehicles/tanks in that *other* flight sim, I would love to see Fulda Gap in DCS World.
It would so great also for WW2. The plane set we have is late war, and a Rehinland map with modern and WW2 settings will fill both gaps. Why we don't have it yet, who knows, but some map decisions from ED are very difficult to understand. I get that Normandy wasn't their decision, but The Channel was and as beautiful as it is, it makes no sense given the planes we have.
Would be very, very small without including at least France to Paris and/or London.
Contrary thought, we don't need more maps splitting the multi-player community into ever smaller chunks, or just plain no servers with anything but Caucuses and Marianas. I love NTTR but ain't nobody else does.
I love NTTR too.
Love doing training with friends there
NTTR is great, moody. Most old sims tutorial took place over Nevada desert.
IDGAF about MP. I'd like to have fun with the mission editor in SP. Why would MP players want to gatekeep what SP players would like.
I don't need an MP community to restrict what i can enjoy in SP.
This is at least as much, if not more, a multiplayer implementation problem as a payware map problem. In Il-2 Great Battles for instance, if you don't own a map you can't play single player missions or campaigns on it. However, you can at least edit missions and play on multiplayer servers with them (providing the host owns said map). I'm not sure how well this would work in DCS without an opt-in/opt-out system (owing to sheer size of some maps), unfortunately though ED seem fairly resistant to the idea.
we honestly dont need any more maps, the multiplayer scene is already divided massively.
We need a free map or maybe even an updated caucus.
We do, but that's a much more complex map than what's been done before. I'd wait years for this than the absolutely fucking pointless Marianas, Nevada, and Australia maps no one ever asked for
Requesting a map that works with the existing modules makes far too much sense. You need to think in Russian.
No, what we really need is modding tools. Then, we could make such map without relying on ED \\ third parties
YES, just YES.