Attackers discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

**

*** Please Read carefully keep this topic civilized do not star any kind of war or rage, and no trolls allowed. We are here to discuss things in an quiet place and let’s respect everyone. Treat everyone with respect and no trolls like ‘‘skill issue’’ '‘russian bias’’ **

**
Thank you

To be honest, I feel attackers like (A-10, SU-25, etc) feels they are waste in Air RB that you get to play with too many supersonic attackers and top tier stuff, and these jets aren’t great in dogfights because they can’t dogfights (excludes missiles) so I feel these slow attackers as well as the A-7K (all attackers that are slow lol) deserves it’s own gamemode something like PvE it kinda ruin the hype for Attackers like the A-10 and it’s completely hard to fly it in Air RB you just gets missiled before you even reach the map and I don’t care if it’s an skill issue. I just feels these kind of jets doesn’t gets it’s love and it’s own gameplay.
Or maybe get these attackers to spawn in some air point near the battlefield?
What do you all think?

Remember: NO war/rage/trolls.
Thank you.

1 Like
2

This is what happens when you fail to evolve/reimagine gameplay designed 11 years ago for WW2 aircraft and allow it to stagnate and be applied to aircraft that weren’t even on a road map when the game was designed.

2 Likes
3

I personally prefer flying “mud movers” as they are sometimes refered as, aircraft such as the Jaguar, Torando IDS or Harrier and I have long found that ARB is not a fun or engaging enviroment for them. Nor do I ideally want to dealing with GRB either. I have personally moved exclusively over to SB, which meets all my needs, but I know it is not ideal for most. I think we need 3 main changes/additions for Attackers to continue to be engaging for none GRB CAS players

  1. Seperate ARB and GRB BRs. Many aircraft have Battle Ratings determined by their performance not in ARB, but GRB. A good example of this is the Harrier Gr7, which has an RB rating of 11.7. Its closest comparrison is likely the Sea Harrier FRS1 which is at 10.7 despite having much of the same flight characteristics and the same AAM loadout. This means the Harrier Gr7 is a full BR higher mostly due to the addition of its A2G loadout.

By seperating the BRs for aircraft in ARB and GRB, then balance can be achieved in both, rather than just one. Many aircraft suffer from being placed unfairly high in ARB due to the ground attack options.

  1. Add a gamemode more suited for CAS, such as RB Enduring Conflict. As previously mentioned SB is my usual go to, as it allows for more space and less dense envrioments that allow for various attackers to actually perform their role in far more safety and whilst improvements are definetly needed in the gamemode, it allows for far more PvE options. Many though dont want to place in cockpit only or deal with the full realistic controls, both valid points, so adding a EC gamemode with RB controls would open up the option for more players

  2. Increase the size of ARB maps and add additional CAS value. Currently destroying bases or taking out ground target affects nothing 99% of the time, games are usually determined like it was TDM. The first team to kill the other team wins. On occasion tickets will play a role, but in all my years, that has only happened to me once in a relatively high BR game. So increasing the size of maps and adding more targets for CAS aircraft that have a far greater impact on the game would be ideal as well.

1 Like
4

The Harrier GR.7 feels much more easy to use over the Sea Harrier FRS.1, I’ve almost never lost a dogfight before in this jet and the Air to Ground ordinances this thing carries are pretty insane.

On the other hand the Sea Harrier FRS.1 still uses the old Harrier fuselage and feels more of a brick whilst flying, but the lower BR which does make up for this downside.

The best example is probably the Tornado GR.1, it feels pretty good when it comes to A2G but in Air RB I’ve given up on the jet in favour of my Tornado F.3. A separate Ground and Air BR would help a lot with attackers like the Tornado GR.1 or SU-25T but it probably won’t happen for a good while.

Oh yeah by the way the Harrier GR.7 is cracked if you know how to fly it

1 Like
5

The better engine in the Gr7 gives it a higher TWR. Making it snappier in the turns and the larger wing helps too. Thankfully the FA2 has the same better engine. I dont touch ARB anymore, but i find the Gr7 a more capable A2A jet than the Tornado F3 in SB these days. With MAWS coming soon to the Gr7 its about to get even better. The main value to the FRS1 is the radar which holds little value in ARB with only IR seekers, but when it gets IFF it will be amazing in ASB

1 Like
6

Personally I’m of the opinion that what needs to be done in order of significance is;

  • The maps overhauled.

    • Spawn location randomized & multiple (in air) Return Points / airstrips added.

  • Airspawn made universal above some BR / Rank cutoff.

    • With the altitude set by optimal time to climb, for any given airframe to a class specific altitude as to help equalize energy states when aircraft engage one another.

These changes would provide some capacity for an even fight between dissimilar airframes as this should de-emphasize Climb Rate for props, and when combined with the above changes to spawns will make interception of Bombers & Attackers more difficult since their routing to any specific target will be somewhat randomized in any given round so force an interceptor to search for them, which can be complicated by careful routing low flying and use of terrain features.

  • Static Ai unit Clusters should be spread out significantly and positioned to optimize to complete and sufficiently tiered map coverage in both width and depth to make traversal of defended spaces (forward deployed around a bombing target to screen the specific objective’s common entry / exit routes & scripted convoys / breakthrough attempts ) and altitudes more of an active process.

To help relive pressure on an intercepted attacker dragging them into defenses without having to completely rely on a 3rd party or run all the way to the airfield to stop the interceptor from simply closing for guns at little risk to themselves, where the Strike aircraft would have few viable options at least for now due to the performance differential and not being able to escape.

  • The adjusting the the; Count Types, and depth of Static Anti-Air emplacements in addition to existing units, and optimization towards their role and range at a given BR / rank these include;
    • Machine guns / Cannon
    • Barrage Fragmentation Batteries (could include Fire control / Radar Antenna as a destructible module that would reduce fire rate and accuracy, an addition to assorted gun emplacements / revetments / ammo trailer / transport)
      • Early Warning / Ground Controlled Intercept Radar (would act like the Blind Hunt order, but intermittent polling and within some slant range displayed on the mini map(not 3D Spotting, may include type, and direction of travel), and improve response time / range of nearby SAM sites)
      • Surface to Air Missiles
      • Static Radar Sites (e.g. SA-2 / MIM-23, modules would include Transport Erector Loaders, Fire Control, Re-loads)
      • IR SAM (e.g. SA-7 / FIM-42C, SA-13 / MIM-72 )

These of clusters would of course be optimal targets for the slower Attackers to expend ordnance on clear the way for probing fighters or escaping Strike aircraft, and so make them more valuable. And as we get to more modern systems an actual reason to balance ordnance loads between A2A and A2G taskings (e.g. an F/A-18C deciding between additional 4x AIM-120, 2x AGM-88, 6x CBU-59, or additional External Fuel Tanks ) to allow for potential eventualities.

And finally some mechanics to help provide options or force Intercepting aircraft to commit to the Shoot down attempt.

  • DECM & ECM pods to prevent / delay Long Range Radar missile acquisition ( the Burn Through Range and the interplay between HOJ / ECCM capabilities).
  • Radar Decoys (ADM-20 / -141 / -160 etc.) to spoof contacts and provoke a response.
  • A2G radar modes & Automatic Terrain Following to allow for very low altitude flight to allow for them to avoid radar based detection (IRST / EOTS detection is a sperate issue, but for now isn’t common enough to present an issue, though could be overhauled).
  • Anti-Radiation Missiles, Cluster & FAE bombs / rockets / missiles, Anti-Shipping Missiles, Post-Release Control capable ordnance, External Fuel tanks, and assorted other stores to allow them to clear the way for a follow on strike and generally be more effective against specific targets at longer ranges in a single pass in order to account for reduced life expectancy.
1 Like