The UH-60M would be a great option to get since it can perform in both transport and gunship roles at the same time unlike the MH-60L DAP.
Would be a perfect addition, capable of transporting whilst also able to adequately defend itself or go and hit some targets at the same time. Would be a good option for a “top” Blackhawk.
Also one of the crucial part of the game is the TGP that is limited to 30km, those TGP for F15E and F/A-18E should reach to 50km like they do irl. It makes those plane handicapped since they have Stand-off weapons that could be launch from 50-70km away from spaa yet it need to close down to 30k to enable to aim.
Can we also get lower tier nuclear escalation. Many late props and early jets were used in Korea and Vietnam. Would be fun to fly this type of game with AD/A1 Skyraiders.
I remember BVVD mentioning in a previous post like this that NE only came to be via either new tech or software they’d managed to develop due to the large increase in map size and massive quantity of individual unique units, radars and munitions flying about at all times, and that even then, it was rough to run, as was the reason provided for why frontline SAM’s don’t have their search radars running at all times (try to reduce the number of individual radars operating simultaneously, and as such, reduce server load). I’m guessing its also partially the reason why the ability to shut off join in progress does not work for NE, as they try to keep games fully populated instead of running significantly more matches simultaneously. I could be misremembering though.
As for how that could hinder a sim NE mode, its possible that gaijin wants to dedicate as many NE capable hardware on their end to running NE for RB, which is vastly more popular. Ppl already complain about the option to restrict join in progress not working in NE, so in theory, if hardware is diverted to running NE games for sim, it could lead to less NE games for RB? Atleast thats why i think they havent bothered adding it to SB? All just a theory on my end though.
This would be great. Can be implemented on a normal big map, defo not a 256x256 and I guess flak is less server intense then guided missile AA.
I believe this would be negligible, for the following reasons:
The question for me - and I’m sure most of my Sim sisters and brothers wonder the same - is, why not simply try?
IIRC there were 4 testing iterations for RB-NE before it became a permanent sub-mode, all I ask is that it is considered to run a similar test with a marker free, cockpit view only variant of the current Nuclear Escalation implementation.
I’d be completely fine if they say, “no, not right now, we first want to tweak NE in one game mode, and only when we’re fully happy with that go thinking about Sim”, instead of adamantly ignoring that question that has now been asked repeatedly within every discussion about Nuclear Escalation since it was announced.
Or any other question we have asked about the development of Air Sim over the last years.
Oh im all for trying, hence why I asked for it lol. I was just saying that even if the reason they havent done it is server related, giving sim players atleast a few lobbies to try it out would go a long way imo.
For normal RB the destroy 3 bases and then destroy the airfield was way more fun. Usually teams had to fly multiple times to the airfields to get enough bombs to destroy the AF.
Do you mean that anti-ship missiles can’t actually target ships?😅😅
What I mean is there are so many trees around the airfields, so I can’t really get into a multipath and fly defensively the second I take off for fear of striking a tree. Occasional ping and packet loss spikes don’t help either.
While one could argue that the bombers have become more “historically accurate” by shedding their previous fragility—resembling spun sugar—it is evident from other comments that they now feel unnaturally tough.
Furthermore, shouldn’t the same review be applied to multi-engine aircraft and large single-engine planes that aren’t classified as “bombers”? I believe assessments should be made from multiple angles—considering factors like the number of engines, overall length and wingspan, dry weight, and construction materials—rather than relying solely on in-game classifications. It is highly unnatural for an aircraft to be granted absurdly high durability simply because it happens to be labeled a “bomber” within WT.
I also think there is room to adjust durability levels based on the game mode, such as AB or RB.
Greece should get TA-7 buddy to buddy refuel!
It’s nothing uncommon , but not many people knew Greek A-7s had such duties… It’s a rare picture.
WT should get buddy-to-buddy refuel!
But then when I observe how people “land” here in this game, I’m admittedly skeptical about how the players would handle this, hehe.
Would be neat thing for squads, especially duos
No,unless gaijin make a small map to fit Skyraiders speed.
Slow plane in big map always too pain to play
Just do this but for bombers
Gunship III was peak mobile gaming, and so was this pilot rescue feature for heli pilots…
Maybe saving pilots could restore team tickets! Either way this would be a great addition
Why?
If bombers would get their markers removed, every other plane should too.
I know from your replies that you think that bombers will become “unusable” after they refine the damage model from the current iteration. This is not the case, they will just become more susceptible to damage from 20-30mm HE, which is currently unable to reliably damage the bombers. And to not make them able to survive ramming so often, as they currently can.
Also the refining of the damage model to have better localization of damage to individual parts, due to hits or fire damage, does not mean bombers will become “unusable.”
