High Off Jolliness?
1 Like
Any plans about other aircraft receiving it, such as the A-10 and SU-25?
4 Likes
Will this change Include the RBS-98s/IRIS-T SL too?
1 Like
Will you add anti-radiation missiles for lower BR jets? Some jets like the Su-17M2 and the A-4Es lacks their anti-rad missiles just for being a step lower BR than the current limit (9.3 instead of 9.7 in Ground RB’s BR)
1 Like
These are good news, and I’d like to forward a question about Nuclear Escalation.
Is it planned to revise naval in this mode? Currently, destroying naval vessels gives no rewards, even less than the rewards you get for taking off and landing. This is the main issue with naval in Nuclear Escalation, but it would also be nice to see more modern vessels and a more diverse range of ships to fight. Perhaps these ships could also fight each other, with player intervention being the main factor that can change the outcome of the naval battle in their team’s favour.
9 Likes
Cluster bombs if i had to guess
3 Likes
@BVV_d I would like to bring three key points to you as someone who’s been present since the first test iterations and regularly playing NE since permanent release.
(I) Could you possibly comment on your thoughts about the suggestion to increase nuke SP costs?
It’s been stated across countless feedback comments provided by players, and I sincerely hope that it would make the matches more enjoyable and less chaotic, making nuclear carriers actually important for the team, and it would also discourage the current meta of tossing a nuke and J’ing out.
(II) There have also been many requests for a rebalancing of naval rewards. Currently, naval plays a very low impact role on matches (ticket wise) and players are not properly rewarded for taking out naval assets considering the amount of time spent engaging in that activity.
(III) While still on the topic of rewards, it feels like taking out: (i) important AI such as SAM site radars or (ii) even regular mobile SAMs/SPAAs throughout the battlefield isn’t properly rewarded. Are there any plans to slightly raise rewards considering that regular IFVs/MBTs will yield the same SL/RP?
Thank you for writing this post and updating us on Nuclear Escalation. I am eager to see new maps come out and all these new planned mechanics.
5 Likes
Will Sim get one?
Peak
Playable AWACS next?
6 Likes
Another idea for this is to implement datalink between capable aircraft. Seeing how most top tier NATO aircraft especially struggle awfully compared to russian counterparts, having the ability to link radars would greatly help some aircraft, specifically the F18E, but overall would be a great feature, maybe even implemented in ARB in the future
7 Likes
Seems like an odd thing to request when there’s no late US frigate designs like the Brooke class currently in game (closest could be said the first cold war frigate america built aka the Dealey class OE/DE/FF, good thing it ain’t targeting surface ships since its Fire Directors are still not operational after two years now). Although wishful thinking for such a vessel to be added as an AI & to prop up the pathetic USN research tree for such vessels.
2 Likes
While bombers not getting nerfed back to what they were before is good. Can I ask in addition to it if there are plans to improve their possible actions within air rb and potential nuclear escalation aswell. As if right now they only fight over 4 very long respawning bases in air rb which the team all has the ability to bomb which often defacto steals that base when a strike fighter with airspawn gets to these faster than any bomber has hope to. After all in a team of over 10 people only having 4 bases shares across all often than not leaves bombers stranded or stalled waiting the around 7 minutes till the base respawns before they can even really participate in the battle.
Would it be possible to take a look at this issue and find a solution there.
4 Likes
You don’t want that lmao.
Red side can also data link.
Specially in early br like mig 23
2 Likes
Need better kill assist credit too. IMO, if you and someone else shoot a volley of missiles with around the same impact time, and all of yours get intercepted but some of theirs go through, you should get some credit because you contributed to those hits
1 Like
I think it should be added tbh. It gives fighters without insane gimbal (Basically any Fixplate AESA) a better chance against non-fixed ESAs like N035, RS-05, and Captor-E.
Plus the same would apply to Red Side, and would massively help things like N019 and N001.
1 Like
It would be an amazing addition such a big map in top tier sim would be perfect
2 Likes
Is it really on the same level though? Chances are it’s very rudimentary with limited practical use, and extensive limitations
1 Like
Will this be a separate tech tree like helicopters? Maybe there can even be extra objectives for both regular helicopters [which are capable] and these cargo helicopters such as CSAR to recover ejected pilots.
I also hope they are not tiresome to research like helicopters and that the rewards for this kind of gameplay are worthwhile, otherwise it’s a hard sell.
2 Likes
It is clear that the resolution of radar seekers is insufficient to guide the missile to a specific part of the aircraft. As far as I know, real-world systems employ various algorithms that offset the aim point relative to the actual radar return to maximize the probability of a successful kill.
Regarding the report you cited—yes, it seems the issue is that the model’s BB center is sometimes ill-suited as an aim point, particularly when the missile lacks a proximity fuse. We will look into addressing this.
18 Likes
On the topic of nuclear escalation, any chances you plan to bring up the glaring issues with the AARGM-ER? Currently its worse than the AGM-88C in every way, and the “mach 4 capable launch conditions” are borderline impossible for the super hornet to reach, its just sad to see such a hyped missile be DOA
2 Likes
Ground datalink doesn’t come close to fighter to fighter datalink like link4C on F-14