this would be a nice fix: https://forum.warthunder.com/t/air-rb-rework/
1 Like
Came to make sure this was being addressed, but 16v16 at top tier is not fun at all. Way too chaotic. Winning more often feels like luck than rewarding. I’ve played far less since the lobby sizes were increased.
3 Likes
Yeah haven’t touched air rb in months, and i only played war thunder for the planes
1 Like
Just side climb
1 Like
Classic meme, but if you really mean it, you’ll end up in a 1vs10 after your team has been stomped in the furball.
I dont do furballs and all i play is ARB
we are mostly talking about higher tier in which climbing is not the smartest option in current meta as you’re are literarly the only target avaliable before the first missile barrage, but if you are talking to lower tiers (9.7 and below) that is valid option to do but still, ARB needs to get changed.
2 Likes
I stays away from jets
2 Likes
Just banish squads to their own separate queue for this.
Dumb take, opening day of 1991 isn’t the same as the subsequent air engagement onwards.
good take, there were no subsequent large air engagements plausible from that day on. So why sortie in the same way from that day onwards. If they were expecting a large engagement, like in Warthunders RB battles, they would sortie in a large group.
Literally self-contradiction, the first 5 days of aerial bombardment during 1991 is not the norm.
There’s no modern engagement where more than four or five jet fighters have fought each other at the same time. And do not confuse an entire war with an engagement. Of course wars have hundreds of fourth gen fighters flying, but not all of them are meeting in a same engagement. What we have in War Thunder are engagements, and if they are to be realistic, they must be realistically scaled. But this struggle is not for the sake of realism alone, 16v16 is unbearable gameplay-wise.
Edit: i’m researching more and i find that pretty much most engagements are 2v2. But of course 2v2 is too small for Air RB so something between 8v8 to 12v12 is best
I suppose i didn’t specify air to air engagement which is what i was reffering to.
I pointed to an example of where a lot of fighters sortied together in formation. If there are more examples after that where its mostly strike missions, i mean that is an argument for large strike oriented air RB if one cared about “realism”.
My example iirc reffered specifically to that amount flying on formation. It was by no means every aircraft over the entire battlefield at that point in time, which is what i was specifically trying to avoid.
Just curious, wasn’t the last time a big hairball happened during the Korean War?
Where did i do this? Ive argued they should, i havent said they have outside of the EC maps that have a more distributed engagement zone.
I can’t with you shills. “16v16 is good because desert storm did it, oh they have literally 300 objectives littered around the ground? my bad let’s make it and wait for 3 decade instead of just reducing the player count in a match”.
fuck off.
1 Like
Never argued this. I pointed to a historical example of a large fighter group doing a sortie in a modern conflict. So if one cared about realism, there are examples of “air RB sized forces” IRL.
Edit: if it wasn’t obvious, i think the realism angle of how matches are set up is dumb as hell for a lot of reasons
Tbh just make every high br Air RB maps use the EC maps with their more distributed targets. I do not consider lowering playercount as much of a solution. Does it help? Sure in some sense, its just not much of a solution given lower playercounts like 6v6 will lead to similar outcomes as far as im concerned