In what ways are manpads useful to gameplay? All they add is another way to randomly die without reason other than; “You stopped paying attention for 15 seconds and I hit you with a stinger”, this is one of the strangest changes to ARB I’ve seen suggested in a while, when the obvious answer is directly infront of us;
There’s no reason to force everyone to start F-4S style base bombing purely because you guys feel it’s unfair to Strike aircraft players (when the Rook already has R-73s at 11.3 and 11.7, the A-10 has 9Ls and faces flareless jets often, etc)
This is an incredibly uneeded change and I don’t know why you’d even suggest it when half the changes just don’t make sense…
3 Likes
this is for arh combat doesn’t have to be all of air rb
Once again, I still disagree. Dogfights can (and do) happen everywhere.
As for multipathing and deck-hugging, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. People don’t want to be easy targets for radar missiles, and not all jets have good (or any!) radar missiles.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
That is a fair point. SAMs and MANPADS will introduce a third way to die and another thing to worry about. Most people just want to have a more intense experience. ARB is so braindead and boring right now, I unironically hop into sim just to feel something.
Putting focus on destroying ground targets, adding to this the proposed marker changes, which make you check your radar for iff and enemies before going for the strike and also smaller lobbies with bigger maps, its going to make A2A engagements rarer and more exciting.
You will have to choose your fights, which area to avoid, which place to loiter to defend your own targets and so on.
If the stronger SAM is too big of an issue then atleast the other changes should be implemented imo.
Any opinions on this are welcome. I just want ARB to feel alive again.
1 Like
They would work against the current “b-line for the base and drop bombs at all cost gameplay”. With them in place players would have to maneuver around them or fly fight over them. This gives gameplay more nuance.
It seems that you are missing the entire point of our idea. We don’t want to force anyone to a specific style of gameplay, rather give all players more options to how they want to play. In our minds, fighters would still be able to fight and they would see the least change to their gameplay loop.
We have one ARH missile in the game. One that’s made to shoot down huge bombers, of course it’s easy to evade
2 Likes
the whole point is to get around low altitude missile spam and make the game more strategic as i said
2 Likes
The ARH missile in question is a fatass phoenix. They are easy to avoid by design. It only pulls 18G
R77 and AMRAAMs have equivalent or higher range and can pull double or more Gs.
They have advanced seeker heads and are significantly more difficult to dodge. These Fox-3s are a completely different ball game and in every top tier game just about all jets will be able to carry them. There will be a lot more of these missiles and they will be a lot deadlier.
3 Likes
One way to avoid ground-hugging imo is to add more terrain features on maps. Cant hug the ground very well if you are fighting over the Himalayas.
4 Likes
When it comes to the modern ARH missile combat coming next patch, I feel discussion about how they should be balanced should be held after they’re actually added and it’s seen how they actually fit into the Air RB meta.
1 Like
The Phoenix in game is hugely overperforming (in terms of tracking) to its irl counterpart, and yet you can still die to it if you just fly in a straight line, the ARH missiles are basically just going to be like avoiding ERs and 7Ms
Go cold and chaff
it’s as shrimple as that.
Furthermore your “not forcing anyone into a specific style of gameplay” is precisely forcing people who use strike aircraft to start attacking ground targets, the A-10 has 4 9Ls, the SU-25s can carry All Aspects, while facing flareless aircraft, what’s the point in changing what is already relatively fine?
Literally all we need is larger maps and lower player counts, you don’t need to rework all this shit…
if i wanted to bomb ground targets in a strike aircraft i’d play grb or CAS in Sim.
I wanna see you dodge 4 amraams coming at you from 4 different directions
4 Likes
If you’ve positioned yourself in a way where you have 4 amraams flying at you then you deserve to lose, its incredibly easy to just… not put yourself in that position?
and sit on the deck wow we came full circle
4 Likes
Thing about these missiles is that at close range they basically become radar guided fox-2 missiles. You enter a furball and they will come at you. I am assuming you didn’t play the beta test for fox-3s
Have you ever touched DCS? You can just go cold, 99% of the time it works unless you’ve trespassed the MAR
I did, and I enjoyed sitting just outside the MAR and lobbing Micas at people. Just sit outside the MAR, then go cold after firing.
This might work in DCS because it’s not 16v16 madness. If you do that in war thunder you are just waiting your time.
4 Likes
Hence why I made the point that Gaijin should lower the player count and raise the map size. You’re starting to get it (finally.)
2 Likes
While those are kinda what we are suggesting, it doesn’t fix the problem of every match of ARB being the exact same. If you read our post you will notice that we have identified multiple problems with ARB, not just map size.
3 Likes