You are certainly right in your observation that the adding of just the opposite parts of the current playable plattform doesnt add anything "new" to the game. But it does allow people to do some real Red vs. Blue scenarios without using the limb of "hijacked FFGs or Seawolfes". And it would probably be easier to implement then some other plattforms, thus reducing costs and work. However I surely would appreciate the adding of "new" plattforms like a SSBN or DDG. That however would mean not only expanding the scope of the game, but (especially in the case of the DDG) some consequences for gameplay too. At the moment this game is a great Tactical ASW Simulator. With the addition of a Burke (for example) you would broaden the Scope to AAW and ASuW. However you suddenly had an overhelming plattform against the airborne plattforms and the single Surface plattform. It adds to gameplay sure, but I don't see that comming, till DW sells like *****. Tho an OPFOR pack might be in the books earlier ... hopefully.

Ooo...SSBNs and SSGN's... :hmm: :|\... now I really really want some mod tools :(

Anythings fine as long as it comes out quick so that they can get on to giving us the mod tools :smug:. Can't you just imagine it. Anything and everything in the air, on the surface, or in the deep available to command...

... *drool*

I don't think people buy games just because of graphics. It's just the fact that people most especially the young ones are not interested in playing simulators. They would usually say that there's too much to learn...that's why they like fps or rpg better.

As for the next dw expansion or future ones, what about giving us a whole carrier battle group to play with?? pls.. scs...

The db editor won't be included either. Don't you remember the prompt that someone's db is different? Not only that, but imagine the accusations of cheating ppl? Keep the mods for the pro's who are currently accomplishing it and have seperate sections for those who use them to play.

Wait wait! You compare the Akulas and 688s as having different styles of game play but you say an OHP and Russia FFG would be the same thing? You are very wrong. Just compare their weapons systems an OHP has a nice SAM/SSM system with one rail and several other small weapons while a Neustrashimy has the cpablity of carrying SSMs, four sextuple SAM launchers 2 SAM/Gun CIWS, six full size (533mm) torpedo tubes that can fire ASROCS, ASW Mortars and mines. The KA-27 and MH-60 are a lot different too the KA-27 is much smaller and less capable it’s a lot like comparing a Kilo to a 688. And well a Bear against an Orion yikes the Bear was a bomber capable of lifting the worlds largest nuke at one point while the Orion is just a converted passenger plane.

Oooo... cool.... :|\
hm.... :hmm:... ok its a toss up, one of these would be cool as well.

EDIT:
except that only one was ever made.

I read that three were built Neustrashimy, Yaraslavl Mudry, and Tuman. I don't know if the last two were commissioned but they could be included in game for the sake of having a few extra hulls, and three would be sufficent for most situations.

Even a Krivak III is well-armed SAMs, 8 533 tubes mines, ASW mortars, mines and it has 14 hulls (7 Russia, 1 Ukrane and 6 India). I would say that despite its less advanced sonar it has more onboard ASW muscle than a FFG-7. Also if SCS wanted they could include the Krivak II giving the player the option of a few extra hulls equiped with ASROCS extra SAMs and guns but no helo.

:hmm:

Which modders are those? :hmm:

My first choice would have been the Krivak III, but being it doesnt have a Helo deck i went for the Udaloy. But the big problem with this topic is that some people want to make a new game. This game is an ASW specific game. NO! Sim. So once you start adding AGIES crusers and destroyers you destroy the foundation of the sim. Next they will want Backfire bombers to counter the DDG's and CCG's. Lets just stick to what makes this game what it is. Thats ASW work. And really graphics dont mean nothing to me. O never even look at my sub or my targets. I play 100% from my stations and the nav map. I dont care what they look like in game, I have over 300 models of many ships and subs. Plus 100's of pic's. Its gameplay thats important to me.

a krivak III does have a helo deck heck it has a KA27 helo too

For my part I agree that a Krivak III would be the most logical choice. This being so the Ka-27 would have to be made playable which would be very interesting indeed. All in all a nice counterpart to the OHP.

Also, although this will never happen and only speaking for my self, I’d like to take command of a Grisha-V. I know it’s really only a costal patrol craft but it is an ASW ship has some interesting weapons. For ASW it’s got 4 21 inch torpedo tubes, a RBU-6000 and two depth charge racks! Hehe Anyone using a Grisha would probably be sunk before they got over any subs but it would sure be fun to depth charge a Seawolf. Score one for the old school. I guess it stems from my love of the underdog, all that whiz-bang of an AEGIS equipped ship is just too much for me.

the grisha is no underdog and is very capible in her role hunting quiet diesel submarines along the coast your right she is no ocean going ship for this the russians commissioned the udaloy's which are far more advanced and are fully capible of sinking any submarine including seawolf.

the grisha is designed around costal patrol intercepting surface ships too and air targets its multi role capible its SAM systems can destroy a small boat.

it has electric engines and kreep motors like many other western ASW units making it quiet

the grisha is set to be replaced with a newer bigger and more capible frigate the nauratshimy class was to replace them but they didnt turn out that good and production was stopped