I actually semi agree with him actually. But Id take a different approach
I think all the ammo depot targets need to be made up of a lot more buildings and the buildings to be more reasonable to destroy using weapons other than nukes.
Attacking them with PW4s for example is a waste of time because they cant destroy any of the buildings.
The sites themselves also look really bad with how empty they are. More targets that could actually be destroyed by conventional weapons rather than nukes would make the gamemode a LOT more fun for me.
Regardless of whether you are dropping unguided bombs using CCIP/CCRP at a lower BR or dropping GNSS weapons at a higher BR, that change would be a good one.
I do also think the density of SAMs is too high and they need to massively increase the range on Tpods but those are separate issues
“After much (no) consideration, we’ve decided to move the airfields even closer together because we felt that the distance to deliver a nuke was too long”
No, missiles guiding towards engines instead of centre in general, many planes shoot flares from centre of fuselage, this will make a difference mostly in side aspect I feel like
Also, besides Gatewidth IRCCM, magic 2 and r-73 have certain parameters in the game code that make them ignore flares more often even if they do see the flares, like how the old 9L was 4-5 years ago. You get flared easier from front aspect, why? Cause you are not looking at the engine. So it will be a buff in this way as well
Depends on the aircraft and potentially the aspect
A lot of CM pods are actually located to the rear of the aircraft and so with it currently targeting centre mass its actually further away from where the CMs are dropping from and thus further from the narrowed FoV of the gate-width seeker
With it moving to target the engine instead, it might actually move the flares inside the FoV where before it wasnt
Some, not all. a majority have CM dispensers located to the rear of the airframe.
I dont think its going to make any difference, its still targeting the exact same thing, just the impact point will be offset towards the engines, the seekers are going to function exactly the same
It does make a difference, when the sensor view was added, it became obvious that missiles chasing centre instead of engines was an issue for missiles like R-73 in terms of flare rejection. It was discussed a lot in Mig-29/Su-27 or R-73 threads I don’t remember, but it becomes much more obvious in sensor view.
Obviously this will make no difference for shut off IRCCM like 9M
because 9M should not track towards the engines
it should track the leading edge of the plane (and it does so from close to the edge of its seeker fov), so flares are in the seeker for much less time
whereas if they make it track the engines it will actually be a nerf for seeker shutoff missiles due to them seeing the flares for longer
The Shilkas only start engaging targets at 3km max, and that’s against fast targets like missiles and planes flying directly at it. Slower targets, like helis, would be much lower on the priority list, and likewise, get shot at much closer distances. Even considering the max range of 3km, the TOW 2 on the AH-1F outranges the shilka with a range of 3.75km.
And Rapiers are no longer in this mode. Those were replaced with Roland 1 missile systems, and they are only guarding depots (at the 10.0-11.0 bracket IIRC) and long range SAM systems. You should never be approaching these in a heli anyways, so those wouldn’t be a problem either.
I still think it will heavily depends on the aircraft and where the CMs drop from, I threw together a quick sketch of why I think it might be a nerf more than a buff.
The big ring represents the seeker FoV, the small dots indicate CMs.
With the FoV further back, it might now mean that the flares are within the seekers FoV where before they werent.
It heavily depends on a LOT of different factors like launch angle, the target, the CM dispenser position, but I just wouldnt be so confident that it will buff gate-width. I think it will do basically nothing overall
and that is assuming that the FoV of the seeker changes at all and its not just changing hte impact point like what we have for ASMs. I think (and I dont know either way, ive never looked) that the ASMs still lock onto the centre point of a ship, but impact a different point. If it were me, for now, I would just recycle that code for IR missiles. (I actually suggested that on the dev forum)
