A number of planes are not designed for take off, fly for 1 minute and brawl type of engagements.
The entire ground attacker line for one. Many U.S planes for two.
It’s much easier to exploit the advantages of U.S planes in air sim than air RB.
Air RB, as it is right now, is arcade lite with how it turns into a mindless furball. It also encourages bad practices as half your team LARPs as lawnmowers to try and do CAS in fighter planes then die immediately. (Seriously, often over half my team as america is armed with missiles/rockets and there’s only 1 other fighter/interceptor actually climbing to altitude where the engines got advantage.)
Much more organic gameplay, it lets you use aircraft the way they were meant to be used (they were not designed to brawl in a 16v16 furball). Also all aircraft types are viable in EC.
And like RunaDacino says, current Air RB plays more like arcade, which is not good.
Never said it was, however, that statement still fails to answer my question, why should it be added?
Right now all I can see happening is the person who flew for a while being shot down after some time only to repeat the same cycle before leaving the game.
@Borkel relying on you here cause I rather not reply to 2 messages separately easier to do it this way.
while I agree that it may be a more organic gameplay, the same mentally occurred with the Great Britain/France map people immediately left that map almost every time which is why it’s no longer in the match-making map queue.
So I ask both of you once again, why should it be added, what qualities of life does it bring that you couldn’t do with Air RB if it was planned to be fixed? cause Air RB back in the day for both of you did what this suggestion wanted with the only exception being you couldn’t respawn back. That was the only difference, I am not saying I wouldn’t mind it being added. I am simply failing to see what it brings to the different table.
Honestly, I would prefer if Gaijin focused all their efforts on an ambitious rework of AIR RB.
Though EC might be better than AIR RB, it is not a panacea; it still has numerous flaws. Implementing it would only serve for Gaijin to consider a minimal action completed, once again adopting a complacent attitude that won’t address the underlying issues.
This should be the standard for high tier ARB and the current ARB structure should be the separate gamemode (if not outright removed completely)
Gen 4 jets and above DESPERATELY need this. What we have now doesn’t feel any different than Air Arcade. And I don’t want to play Air Arcade. I want to play Air Realistic. This change/gamemode should have come long before Fox 3s so it’s way overdue. I’d even play this for the 9.0-10.0 range, perhaps even lower. Don’t care how long queue times are. I’d gladly wait 3-5 minutes for a more enjoyable experience.
Because they were forced to play it! The EC we are suggesting would be its own separate gamemode, nobody would be forced to play it like the Great Britain/France map. I already explained twice why the issue you are explaining would not be an issue at all.
Ok, and I fail to continue to see why it would be beneficial. At all. Air RB EC would only be played by a very small niche minority. If you had read it, I never said I’m against it, I just don’t see the reason for it to be added.
Even then the majority would fly into a spiral, it wouldn’t change anything. Bombers are gonna fly extremely high and play like bots, ground support crafts are gonna be easy prey for being blind, and most are gonna fly into a spiral of doom, with the only difference being having places where you can properly fight another.
Hmmm, wonder what used to occur ah yes, old Air RB. Was precisely this.
Bombers->Very high.
Ground Support Crafts->Super Low and Blind.
Everything else->fighting one another in a spiral and or fighting each other away from the spiral of headaches and doom.
Air RB EC doesn’t provide anything that Air RB doesn’t already do, it just leads to players spawning back into the match and into a continuous row of chucking up more SL.
Here’s the catch though, IF and a BIG IF, they incorporate newer maps because of this mode based on historical periods. Or hypothetical periods such as an Inter-War WW2-based map and other sorts then I’m A ok with it. However, the Mode would just be Old Air RB with the ability to spawn back in for the cost of SL.
A lot of people want RB EC, it’s not just a niche thing. If you don’t like death spirals then why defend the current RB, it’s a constant 16v16 furball clusterfuck. Air Simulator plays much more nicely in comparison.
RB EC offers a more immersive and realistic combat experience without requiring the first-person view and complex controls of Simulator Battles. This is very appealing to many players. I truly believe RB EC would bring RB to its full potential. War Thunder could offer something very unique that no other air combat game offers: a realistic and dynamic enduring battle with casual controls.
The extended battle duration, reduced player density, and dynamic objectives allow players to enjoy any playstyle they prefer (bombing, CAS, BVR, dogfights). This would benefit gameplay at any BR and align particularly well with top-tier multi-role 4th gen aircraft.
War Thunder has had the same game modes for years, so a new game mode would be very refreshing, attracting both new and returning players to the game. You can’t tell me the current RB is a good match for 4th gen aircraft, it’s too much of a mess.
With the new RB EC, new objectives could be introduced in the form of long-range anti-air defenses, like the Patriot or S-300 systems. These threats would justify the addition of anti-radiation missiles into the game.
A map like this, combining ground forces, naval forces and air forces, would have enough space to implement player-controlled SAM sites like Patriot or S-300.
Exactly this. RB EC would allow for new threats to be introduced which itself would allow new weapons to deal with such threats. Naval targets could be placed on maps which would allow players to use ASM’s to their full potential (this would hopefully make Gaijin fix the already existing ASM’s and make them implement new ones in usable states). We could also see the introduction of JDAM’s and cluster bombs to be used on new bases/compounds/AI targets.
Also a second mode of RB EC could let players play in a mix of Air, Ground, and Naval battles in one, big dynamic battles where ground players can fight over objectives, air players take on CAS/ Air superiority roles and naval players can be used for fire support or convoy protections. Mixed battles are already achievable in game but obviously not to this extent. Some custom battles have spawn options for all vehicle types. If Gaijin tried I genuinely think something like this would be possible.
You just described what Air Sim is. Or as I describe your writing as nothing more than PR lingo.
All of what you said can and should be incorporated into Air RB. Even if it’s not, the current mentality of War Thunder Air RB players would not join an EC match. Going off Gaijin’s track record, they don’t update modes if they’re not gaining much attraction. For example the failed and butcher-up sad job of the now abandoned World War Mode.
So I ask once again, what does this mode offer that you could not do if you were to modify Air RB? and change/revert the current player’s mentalities to something closer to Early-Mid 2017 which is the remnant of the golden years of War Thunder. Where you had a mixture of gameplay that could get intense but wasn’t always.
Yes I literally said it would be Air Sim with RB controls and third person view, which is cool.
lol
No, because it would then force everyone to play it and, like you yourself said earlier, some people would J out. It defenitely has to be its own gamemode.
Just say you dont understand how EC works of this is really what you think would happen. You dont win EC matches by fighters killing fighters. You win EC matches by bombing target points, wiping out ground battles, and completing the objectives which spawn.
The fighters in the idiot furball are just wasting their time unless its happening in an “A” capture point.
If that’s what you think I mean, then that is what you think I mean.
It’s not correct so I’ll let you 2 keep trying to figure out what I mean. All the clues are available to you.
I’ll leave a hint, EC doesn’t provide anything different that other modes don’t already fulfill. A different control scheme isn’t a solid justification for it to be added.
Im currently write 60k symbols suggestion with lot of diagrams about that.
Here me out:
Aviation gamemode “Escalation”, with nuclear weapons, ARMs and 6700km² ground map
[Would you like to see this in-game?]
Yes
No
I didn’t read the topic (so yes)
0voters
Prologue
So, re-creating this thread for a few reasons. First, my vision of the mode and some game nuances have changed. Secondly, the previous topic was quietly buried in the “Approved by players” section. Thirdly, the moderators of the English forum rejected the topic first because “the mode is not described in enough detail, there are no diagrams, maps and calculations”, and soon because I “proposed an inexcusable number of innovations in a single proposal”.
Ok gentlemen, I will try to correct myself and take into account my mistakes. Mainly, I will add visual maps, tutorials, and try to realize the idea without adding the techniques marked in red.
I will also label some suggested elements or mechanics as very important details without which the point of the mode will be lost, or as unimportant that can be added later or not at all.
Very briefly
The proposed mode is an ARB Confrontation in an intense full-scale war. The action unfolds on a huge and dynamic battlefield, where both sides use all available resources and weapons, including nuclear weapons.
To achieve the required result, the mode uses an extensive, detailed and elaborate, but optimized game map with a large number of targets, points of interest and vehicles. The map contains columns of armored vehicles, long-range air defense installations, stationary detection radars or BDCs. A session lasts from 30 minutes to several hours and can end in either a tactical defeat by conventional weapons or a strategic victory using nuclear weapons. The mode is proposed to be released in modular form: at first in a stripped-down version, without many examples of the proposed equipment, but with the prospects of adding new models, as well as the possibility of introducing 5th generation fighters or even modern submarines and REB aircraft.
The cornerstones of the regime are the beliefs that:
The current ARB is obsolete in 2015 and needs to move on.
Balancing by BR or by years of service doesn’t work, airplanes must be balanced using a map, goals and objectives for a specific class of equipment.
Modern air warfare is not a head-to-head skirmish, but a complex confrontation between aircraft and air defense.
Map
Whatever I say about the skills of the ground location creator, who squeezes everything possible out of your prehistoric engine, I can’t say the same about the air location mapper. And I’m not talking about locations made in 2016, but very recent ones. The clearest example, the new Mysterious Valley map. Of course, everything looks very beautiful in pictures… Until you launch the game. You see, if on a shabby 1 map, with a shabby terrain with which did not work even in photoshop, scripts to throw trees, urban development without logic, then what highly detailed would not be assets, the map will turn out shabby.
But, the brave location creator(s) spent dozens of “free” man-hours so that players could destroy civilian buildings! Oh, and in addition to the totally disproportionate dam, they built radio telescope 1, and added boats! I bow to your diligence, considering it’s a huge map, and the handmade points of interest are too far away from the battlefield. No, I just don’t get it, if the terrain itself is so bad, why put so much visual garbage that has no use whatsoever in the game? Just for the sake of it?
Why can’t the correct topography be implemented first, with no river-canyons, with proportional mountain ranges, and with roads that were first planned and modeled, not drawn with a can of spray paint?
Why can’t you use more than 3 polygons per kilometer of terrain, why…
Ah yes, the limitations of the world’s best Dagor engine. Although the limitations are of system rather than hardware nature, because your engine doesn’t cost anything to render an impressive picture and a lot of visual effects. But this limitation was left meaningfully, because why invent new things, if there is old as gamemade technology heightmaps and terranes? Maybe the new technology is very complicated? No, the 90’s technology called fbx is much older than yours, but you manage to lose to it.
Let’s look at an example of a map that one developer created for his game, which, by the way, our game is already losing on a bunch of parameters, except for the amount of equipment …
(I drew the 2d map, thanks to the .com moderators for forcing me to learn new software).
(No designations or diagrams of airfields and equipment locations yet.)
If the respected developer looks at the scale in the lower right corner, he can roughly understand the dimensions of this map. Namely, 82x82km. Not impressive? Perhaps, but please don’t forget that on our 128x128km maps only 90x30km strip between airfields is used, but about that later. Another thing is important.
(topographic map)
Terrain. On this map every 200 meters there is a height difference, there are mountains, lowlands, straits, islands, that is just a bunch of natural obstacles.
Second, the problem with the size and boundary of maps is very easily solved by the ocean. An island or archipelago is the most efficient solution for such a map.
Third, is the road network, which well really has its own geometry, and allows a ground unit to travel from one point on the map to another without problems.
But how to make such beauty? Very simple, use specialized software. For example Gaea, World Creator, WorldMachine, Gaia, Terragen.
And don’t say that the software is too complicated, that it takes a long time to retrain. For example, I know for sure that Nikolay used WorldMachine to create a location. Here is an example file that can be used for correct and smooth roads with their own geometry.
But how do you do that in a Dagor engine? Definitely not with terrain, because it’s expensive and very inaccurate. It’s better to use regular meshes with the same shader that the landclasses shader uses. According to comparisons, in this case such meshes have 30% less triangles, and at the same time absolutely do not lose in accuracy at a distance.
Airbases
Well, the first thing that catches the eye is that each team has not one, and not even two WFPs, but as many as four. Specifically.
Two major airfields, also known as permanent airfields
One medium or operational airfield
And one small runway/airfield road section
This allows you to “spread” players across the map, and reduce flight times for slower vehicles.
Map of airfield locations, I think it is clear that a small marker is a small runway and a large marker is a large runway.
Let’s look at each type of airfield in detail.
Highway runway
As the name implies, it is a section of highway that is to serve as an airfield in the event of war.
Located only a few kilometers from the battlefield, it has only cover of the object air defense.
There are no hangars on the airfield, if this strip of concrete can be called that, but only a few ground shelters from shrapnel, and a helipad.
(example from another game)
It is closer to the battlefield, and is covered only by object air defense, and a couple of medium-range SAMs. The lesser amount of defense is compensated for by a higher density of kill assets.
The airfield is operated mainly by tactical aircraft - fighters, attack aircraft and tactical bombers.
(example from another game)
(a real-life example)
Major airfield
It is located deep behind the lines and is covered by long-range SAMs, SAM carriers, and SAMs. Without preliminary “ground preparation” any attempt at an air breakthrough is doomed to failure, and the delivered combat cargo will be guaranteed to be destroyed at the initial stage of flight.
The airbase has large covered hangars, stationary airborne radars, air traffic control tower, infrastructure buildings, oil storage facilities, etc.
From this airfield take off from this airfield airplanes DRLO, heavy fighters and strategic bombers.
(example from another game)
(a real-life example)
So, lest to not forget, All airfields also possess helipads.
It is also very important that players should spawn inside hangars, and drive themselves to the runway. This is necessary in order to slow down the speed of the battle, and to increase the value of each flight in the eyes of the players. (as the proposal below for a detailed economic system will most likely be rejected by the developers)
Oh, and Nikolay, (or whoever is going to make the location) forget about procedural airfields with their own piece of terrane, you want to move the strip - be kind enough to go to WorldMachine, Blender. LocationEditor or wherever you made the location, and there change the landscape for the airfield. Coprendo? Because literally every update breaks these airfields, and if you remember the masterpieces of auto-placement of objects to the landscape…
Logistics hubs
And now for the bases! Just kidding, this is not a space bar simulator.
Logistics hubs/transportation depots will be located along roads throughout the map.
They’re storing columns of armored vehicles and ammunition. Total 19 knots per team.
Here’s a diagram of their location:
Each such hub is covered by object air defense, and there is a helipad near each such hub (except for those at airbases).
It is necessary for the helicopters did not have to fly for half an hour to reload (what some players were worried about), but you can not spawn on them.
As for repair, refueling and recharging, you can go the easy way and the hard way: either service helicopters as they do now, or near each site (and the airfield) will be a gas tanker, a truck with ammunition, and a service truck. Their destruction will take away the ability to refuel, recharge, and repair accordingly.
Air Defence
Time to talk about punching bags, de is not the case. As I mentioned before, modern air warfare is a complex confrontation between air and air defense. And if you just spread air defense on the map, the effectiveness of weapons will be 100%, and that’s not good. Therefore, all SAMs, SAMs and even BMs must be able to fight with munitions.
Yes, maybe they should be a bit slow, dull and slow, but they should be able to shoot down a Maverick or a FAB-500 flying into the their face. Every HVAR, bomb or missile in the game already has its own physics, hitbox, temperature and sexual orientation, so all that remains to implement this mechanic is to simply add all objects with the tag armarment to the list of AI targets. (I’m simplifying here, of course, but that’s the general outline.)
And so, under the new gamemode air defense can be divided into:
Long-range air defense
Perhaps the most complex case that will require many man hours to implement.
The point of having these systems on the map is to block out the sky at high altitudes and distances.
I think that two systems per team will be sufficient for this. The systems are located in valleys for balance and safety reasons for the systems itself. These are the locations of the long-range SAMs:
As for instances, they could be Patriot and S-300 systems in the modifications desired by the developer, although I believe that the range of 80km is enough for the eyes, so MIM-104 and 5B55R missiles will be suitable, respectively.
Within the game, each calculation would look something like this:
Three launchers
Command post (possibly with radar)
Detection and tracking radars Tor-M1/Roland medium-range surface-to-air missile defense system Strela-10M2/LAV-AD short-range surface-to-air missile defense system
Medium-range air defense
Technically the proposed systems are short-range SAMs, but I think that Buk or Nasams will be too overpowered, and it is necessary to leave the air for aviation.
The point of such systems is to cover not half of the map, but very important strategic objects, such as airfields, factory complexes, logistics hubs or just a local direction.
Here are the locations of the medium-range SAMs:
Map middle range sams
Map middle range sams
1920×1920 453 KB
Only seven per team. If necessary, short-range SAMs can be placed next to each other.
The approximate effective kill range is just the length of a large cell on the map.
We are not going to reinvent the wheel, so we will have Tor-M1 and FlaRakRad as medium-range SAMs. No, of course we can use Pancir and Adats, but I think that would be too effective.
Short-range air defense/point air defense
And then there’s point air defense. It protects almost any static target on the map, as well as columns of armored vehicles. I don’t see the point of the scheme, so let’s move on to the vehicles.
Strela-10M2/LAV-AD (let the Strela work without contrast-seeking) Gepard/Shilka (you can also use m247, but its shells will be too effective)
There will also be various BMs in convoys, like 2S38 or Puma, but their effectiveness is much lower.
Armored columns
They’re also convoys, they’re also cauldrons. Since in the game’s scenario the start of the war was a complete surprise for both sides, there is no front line on the map, instead, all ground battles takes place only along roads and in cities. The system of front lines and ground dull firefights can be left in 2018.
Convoys spawn near logistics nodes every 5-10 minutes. In each convoy… At this point, the developer can again take the simple or complex path.
A simple path implies that a fixed number of vehicles are spawned according to a timer. A complex path is a dynamic system, for example, a destroyeble factory complex produces MBTs at a rate of 4 per minute. And once a sufficient number of MBTs have been accumulated, they will be spawned at logistics hubs. Thus, it would be possible to destroy the factory(s) in order to completely deprive the enemy of the ability to put MBTs on the battlefield.
The columns have the goal of capturing important targets like manufacturing facilities, cities and most importantly, airfields.
Here are their approximate routes:
(convoys spawn at logistics hubs, so the arrows show direction, but not route)
With regard to the structure of convoys, they may consist of
2-4 MBTs
2-4 APCS
2-4 AFVS
2-4 armored vehicles (just a truck?)
1-3 short-range SAMs
0-1 Medium-range SAMs
Ground radars
According to the logic of modern warfare, air defense and air force forces use ground radars to detect and track targets. Each side uses 6 such radars.
What does the gamemode need such radars for? The same thing the IRL needs them for, and also because of the big size of the useble map space. After all, no one likes to run into a poorly designed air ambush, especially with a buggy marker system…
Radars should inform players of the air situation. You can go the hard way, or the easy way. Either implement Datalink/Accord systems, or the radars will just point on the enemy as the player would.
All radars are located at elevations, which is logical because if the radars were at sea level, their effective range would be limited to the nearest mountain range.
Here are the radar locations:
The radars should be covered by 2-3 anti-aircraft systems: 2 SAMs, and one SPAA.
I leave the choice of vehicles to the developers, but in my opinion it will be Strela-10M2, LAV-AD, Shilka and Gepard.
As for the radar model, I haven’t found stationary scanning radars, but you can use mobile versions like TRML and Противник-ГE.
Aviation
In the original iteration of the topic, a significant part of the suggestion was a description of the system of gradual unlocking of new types of aircraft as the intensity of combat increases. That is, everyone would start the battle on conventional cornplanes with a pair of bombs, and only after earning SP could they unlock helicopters, multirole fighters, and strategic bombers. However, such a system had multiple disadvantages and even served as one of the reasons why moderators rejected the topic. Firstly, such a system requires a very large amount of new equipment to be introduced, and most of them could only be used in the proposed mode. Secondly, in multi-hour sessions there is no need to tighten the gameplay even more. The third reason is the introduction of AMRAAMs which permanently “remove” heavy strategic aviation for almost the entire battle. It is understandable, because strategic bombers are used at great distances from the front line and in this mode will feel, to put it mildly, cramped.
Well, the fourth reason is collecting stats from the competitor example, which clearly showed that although all types of aircraft were available to players, 90% of the battle time only attack helicopters, trainers/attack aircraft and multi-purpose fighters were used. Because no one wanted fly highly specialized EW aircraft, slow turboprops and strategic bombers defenseless against enemy aircraft.
However, I did not completely abandon such a system to avoid the chaos at the beginning of every battle at high levels, when gaining altitude above 100 meters means death by AIM-120 or R-27.
So, in new gamemode, players will have access to:
Heavy attack/training aircraft
Su-25
A-10
AMX
Alpha Jet
Just smth slow?
Also:
Aero L-39 Albatros
Yak-130
Hawker Siddeley Hawk
FMA IA 63 Pampa
Hongdu L-15
Aermacchi M-346
Boeing T-45 Goshawk
AIDC AT-3
KAI T-50 Golden Eagle
SAAB-105G (wish I had a Saab 38).
Attack helicopters
A129CBT
AH-64A
EC-665 Tiger HAP
Ka-50
Z-19 (won’t the TY-90s be overpowered?)
Meybe just all VI-VIII rank heli in the game?
So, new aspect of the game - new disadvantages. At the moment, nuclear weapons in the game are implemented only in TAB and TRB, and are presented only in the form of a cutscene. Sure, the cutscene is advanced, even with animation of destroying objects on the map, but it doesn’t add to the interactivity. Much to the dismay of the VFX team, the current implementation of nuclear weapons is nowhere near good enough. So let’s start over.
As part of the new gamemode (and in the game as a whole), nuclear weapons must have the following features:
Have physics and a hitbox so that the warhead can be intercepted by means available to players.
Have no restrictions on the place and purpose of use. For example, no restrictions such as “fly to [target ID] to arm the bomb”. If I want to nuke Grandma Zina’s village variety (and meet the requirements), I will nuke that variety.
The effect and impact of the explosion must be entirely in real time and adhere to the game laws of physics.
Have heat damage (near the epicenter of the blast “annihilates” targets) and shockwave damage (weakens as distance increases, travels at the speed of sound).
The detonation of a thermonuclear charge is often accompanied by a very bright glow, which is important to consider when creating the effect.
For the VFX part of the explosion you can, no you should use 3D meshes, which will cope well with the visualization of the fireball and the animation of the mushroom formation. For everything else you can use the familiar particle system.
It’s very simple: the blue team will have a B61, (with a configurable yield from 0.3 to 340 kts.) In the game version, it will have two modifications: 20 kts and 150 kts. It can be carried by a wide range of aircraft, (including the B-1, B-2, B-52, FB-111, F-100, F-104, F-105, General Dynamics F-111, F-4, A-4, A-6, A-7, F-15 and F-15E, F/A-18, F-117, and F-35.) However, the main carriers are the F-16 and Tornado IDS.
As for the red team… I’ll make a tactical digression here to explain that, due to certain factors in recent history, Soviet doctrine did not envision the delivery of a nuclear bomb by air. Instead, it relied on a wide range of ballistic missile delivery systems. Thus, there is no bomb.
So, we are at a crossroads again. We can either:
Not speculate on the information and abandon nuclear bombs altogether, and instead spend a lot of resources on creating missile silos/launchers or submarines that would launch ballistic missiles at predefined targets by script, thus preserving “historicity.”
Introduce a highly specialized class of strategic bombers that would carry such bombs or even cruise missiles. It would be cool, but do we have that many resources?
Or, we could create a bomb for each faction, even if there is no declassified data, assign them all the same characteristics, and allow those planes that are technically capable of carrying them to do so. Sukhoi aircraft can definitely carry such bombs, as can F-15s, and J-11s.
Here’s a suggestion from a guy on Reddit.
Escalation
In simple words, it’s a slightly modified Mission Points system. Players complete missions, destroy targets, and earn MPs. The number of MPs of all team members is summed up and converted into Escalation Points at a special rate. To be honest, I don’t have exact calculations, but in my opinion, the rate should be about 50to1. Since on average in ARB a team gets about 10.000 MP per battle. Oh, and based on the number of EPs the escalation system determines when nuclear armageddon will occur.
There are a total of three levels of escalation:
Conventional level (0-1000 EP):
At this level, only conventional methods of destroying the enemy, such as bombs and missiles with a TNT equivalent of no more than tens of tons, are permitted.
Tactical level (1000-1500 EP):
After reaching the 1000 DE mark, players have access to tactical nuclear weapons limited to 20 kilotons. This is sufficient for hitting concentrations of equipment and production facilities, but not enough to destroy large and complex targets such as airbases.
Strategic level (1,500-2,000 EP):
At this level, nuclear weapons are limited to a yield of 150 kilotons. One such explosion within a 7 km radius of a soft target is sufficient to guarantee its destruction. One such strike is capable of completely clearing the western island and causing fatal damage to aircraft within a radius of up to 10 km from the epicenter of the strike.
For example, if the Red Team scores 50,000 MP, it gains access to a 20kt nuke. At the same time, if a Red team player tries to use (albeit unsuccessfully) a nuke, the Blue team automatically gets access to tactical warheads, even if they don’t have enough EP to do so. Thus, it will be technically possible to win in 40 minutes, assuming of course your team can take out all enemy airfields in one strike. If you fail, your advantage in nukes will be negated.
This would be amazing. Could be that ground players fight over various points on the map with air players acting as CAS or air superiority fighters/interceptors and naval players protect a carrier or convoy. AI targets could be introduced for players to attack like ground convoys, artillery guns/missile sites, could have various bombers and AI fighters to attack and the could be cargo ships and various naval vessels you need to attack/defend from.
With helicopters there could be AI infantry that you could drop off/pick up at various points which would give benefits to your team or capture certain points. This would give a use to helicopters such as the UH-1’s, MH-60’s, Mi-4/8/24/35. This would give another use to utility helicopters and could get Gaijin to add helicopters such as the CH-47, UH-1Y and even the V-22.
With nuclear weapons they could be spawned in when your team have captured certain points and. Bombers and fighter equipped with nuclear weapons could be flown by a player and have an objective for other teammates to protect you until you release the weapon. Nuclear ICBM’s could be spawned by capturing silo’s across the map and could only be used once from each silo. Where the ICBM is launched to could be decided by players voting on a map or just at a set point with each silo targeting a specific area.
A combined arms, massive mode with lots of players fighting in various skirmishes could allow Gaijin to add more weapons, vehicles and features to the game in a better environment than the current game modes. We can already see that in Sim the vast majority of aircraft that are useless in RB can be played in Sim due to the bigger game size and varying objectives. This could allow Gaijin to add more modern strategic bombers, interceptors, helicopters as they would have a use within the mode. We could see HARM missiles to attack radar SAM sites and more/working Anti-Ship Missiles being added for use in attacking naval targets. The amount of players could be larger to accommodate the larger game size and could be supplemented by AI of varying capabilities if need be. This would not only be great as a Realistic mode but would be incredibly popular in Sim but some stuff would need to be improved from Gaijin first.
Overall a game mode like this could be very much suited for the game but Gaijin would have to make some much needed improvements to the game first.
