So many possibilities could fit into this game mode:
Strategic bomber interception
SEAD operations
Close air support missions
Anti-ship operations
base bombing
air-to-air refueling
carrier operations
base capture
search and rescue
cargo missions
scouting missions
(I just wanna larp in my favorite aircraft game snail pls)
I think this looks a bit to the subject
It’s not me who made the mod
I really hope Gaijin brings back RB EC and actually spends some time developing it but…
… be prepared to be letdown.
Many of us have been begging Gaijin for 5+ years to bring back Enduring Confrontation as a permanent separate game mode and Gaijin hasn’t even been bothered to respond.
Several CC’s have even conducted YouTube polls gaining over 10k votes vastly favoring the addition of RB EC and yet still, Gaijin does not respond.
With the devs there just seems to be an allergy to RB EC.
Maybe its because it might harm Sim EC. Or maybe it’s because it may harm the RB matchmaker. Maybe it’s just laziness.
But after years of begging for RB EC to be brought back, I’ve lost most hope in ever seeing it again.
It would be glorious though.
bumping this
Can we get a response from the developers on this?
Even just something as simple as,
Or
Whether its RB EC or a rework of the PVE modes, longer form Air gameplay is one of the most requested features ive seen in War Thunder for the last several years, especially since upper tier Air RB and Air Arcade have become super short.
It would be nice to get some feedback on this, even if its minimal.
Thanks.
Well i still have my hopium bottle ready while waiting for an awnser. I Guess if we let the topic dying gaijin wont act as if it has existed.
More seriously, maybe let’s show that we’re still interested ?
BVVD had an interview with a Chinese outlet. One of the main topics of conversation was top down artillery and fire and forget surface to surface missiles.
While BVVD said that these will not be coming to GRB, he did say they are working on other Missions/Modes where these could be used in.
Sounds like something longer form is in the works. Maybe PVE or EC. Who knows. But theres a little bit of hope here i guess.
Wish we would just get a clear response on this stuff but we take what we can get.
When had this Taken place ?
A few weeks ago. TEC’s YouTube channel had covered it.
This would be great…pretty much what air Sim is without the Sim part…of course one of the problem is for enough targets to spawn. As we can see sometimes in Heli PvE, targets jsut refuse to spawn. But yeah, this would be a nice way to grind up things, or help with grind and not just tage of, fly for few minuts before getting killed by enemy as you did nothing, you get no SL, no RP and you repeat this over and over and over
Air RB with 16vs16 in the center of the map is BS, no interest in the game has left after you finish the research of the air tree. Either they change this mode, or either they will lose the players because there is nothing in the game which hold you after the grinding. The SIM mode is great in comparison with ARB and it is the only thing which still hold me in the game, even if the devs do not care at all about the SIM community and just spitting on them
Finally got around to checking this out. You know way more about map making in this engine than I do, I will concede that.
But it kind of reinforces my issue that the game needs to have bigger maps (or, accurately, bigger heightmaps) for any such gameplay to make it into the game. Without bigger maps (heightmaps) such gameplay isn’t possible with this engine.
Look, this is not DCS here, a 40 minute session is already too long for most players. Again, just a high-quality map of 80x80 km is enough, but with a good landscape and design that does not look like Google Maps. Larger maps mean lower quality, less detail, and paradoxically fewer points of interest and usable game space. Adding giant maps just to make sense of air refueling and dubious SEAD operations? Just imagine that you want to add helicopter landing operations. It literally takes hours to get from point a to point b.
I want giant maps more because then you can make multiple missions on one map (using different areas) than making the same mission over multiple maps.
For example if there was a “Bombers over Europe” mission where they have to fly from Britain to Colgone, they have to use 3 or 4 different maps in game to do that.
But, I will admit I am thinking of this in a sim player mindset where bigger maps are just better because there’s more space to do more things. I did try to render a map but it would have had a huge distance because its only 2048x2048. I wonder if it would be possible to code the engine to take like 4096x4096 or something. Or even uneven maps. Idk, just kinda yapping.
Just 4 very large maps.
You want maps for cinematics and simulations in TacView, not for gaming.
The best map in ASB EC is Tunisia, because it is small and has a pleasant color scheme that does not hurt the eyes.
Big cards, even for top shooting, play terribly for those without phoenixes.
Neither 1 super large nor 4 simply large maps will not change the cardinal problems of the gameplay. No one wants to intercept bombers for several hours, no one wants to play in a session for 5 hours without a break…
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean here. I want maps that have range because modern weapons are built with ranges that exceed the tiny little sandbox they are currently placed into. An AMRAAM has a range of 60nmi, or ~112km. The largest maps in game are 128km across. Players aren’t allowed to use their weapons to their fullest extent because the map physically doesn’t let you.
Tunisia is like the worst map for ASB EC because it’s so small that you can’t do anything. Particularly for top tier (which is what we are discussing here I think) you can’t leave a very close area past your spawn without getting tracked by an enemy from their spawn. It is extremely easy to run up on the enemy airfield and fly over it (although this might get you killed) in mere minutes. That should not be the case.
They don’t, I don’t know where you got this idea. They play fine if you know what you’re doing. And if they do play bad, they can’t possibly be better because of the limitations I just mentioned.
I’m not saying they have to play the same session for 5 hours. The session should go on for 5 hours yes but players can leave and join as they like. Timed server resets could mitigate the “staleness” of the server if it gets to its limits. This is how EC currently works, in a sense. It is a game going on while the players can decide to join or not at any time. The game continues on. But the maps we have aren’t capable of accommodating such long-form gameplay, especially at the top ranks.
I think there is a fundamental difference between how you and I are perceiving maps. It seems to me you want maps where there is action always at someone’s fingertips. Its never more than a few seconds away. While I, on the other hand, think that there should be lulls in action during battles; even more present in EC where the maps are big and sometimes nothing is going on. Sometimes its better to have no action sometimes because when there is action it feels that much more engaging. But still, just because you want maps where everything is within visual range doesn’t mean the option for bigger maps should be inherently tossed out the window. I think its better to have one big map that can be broken up into small maps than a bunch of small maps that can’t fit together.
If the game keeps adding weapons with longer and longer ranges, the maps need to increase in size as well to compensate. This hasn’t been done in a way that I think would allow these weapon systems or aircraft to perform in the ways they were intended to. When is the last time you needed to climb to 40,000ft (12km), speed up to Mach 1.5, and sling an AMRAAM with as much energy as you can possibly give it? Probably never, because the game does not support this type of gameplay; I think it should, because this is how these modern weapons systems are designed to be used. From very very long range where it takes effort and skill to both not get hit and close the range so that you can attack the opponent before they can attack you.
And yes, this game isn’t DCS, and I’m not saying it should be. I just think that large maps would be better for long-form gameplay more akin to Battlefield than the current PvP slamfest War Thunder is. In that regard, War Thunder should take inspiration from DCS PvE servers, and try to model itself in a similar way. An open server browser with multiple games going on at once can ensure players could join a game, play for a bit, and then leave if they really wanted to. Nothing would be forcing them to stay longer than necessary.
I have an idea for how markers could be added into this mode. Having regular RB markers takes away from the EC aspect, but removing markers entirely could get boring.
I propose a reduced marker system. Enemy markers will not show up beyond 5km, and they will not be transmitted to all teammates. They will also only have a red diamond, and not the plane/username. This way, players who want more of a sim aspect can be satisfied, while also keeping some of RBs accessibility and usability.
For repair costs, keep it a death cost like RB, instead of the spawn cost that sim EC uses.
This would 100% bring me back to the game as every game wont be the same fly straight kill 1 or 2 people die and repeat.
It´s hilarious how this topic gets “actively” ignored by Gaijin. Weird how some stuff with a handful of votes gets forwarded while topics like this get ignored. Also nice how they took ideas from the Air RB EC threads to make their attempt at saving Naval. Which is quite the slap in the face considering the circumstances.
Not wanna suggest anything, but maybe some people might consider the kind of behavior Gaijin displays towards the player base next WT sale and maybe talk to their friends about it.
And as always: “We know you want it, but believe us you actually don´t want it, because we know better what you want, then you know what you want.” -Gaijin Dude in YT Q&A.
Its really funny how they did one air RB EC test, everyone liked it, and then said “yeah, no” and never introduced it to the game
