You can jettison the rocket pods though, you have to do it manually however. Yes, the bombs put a massive damper on the already not-so-great performance, still love the Harrier though, still a marvel of engineering.
Oh, also, do you know why they changed the original Dark Navy color to the Cloud Grey on the paint job, I remember at the release I was a Dark Navy with the red tail insignia.
Also, some FRS.1’s had a Fueling boom, even before the FA.2, which has a larger radar dome if I remember, aerial refueling is still a thing I’d love to see in sim EC:
You bought a subsonic attack plane and expected it to outperform the supersonic fighter/bombers in the tree? The A6E, like the A10s/Su-25s, aren’t well suited for air RB because of their airframe’s performance. They are too slow to cover the distances required, and aren’t good at air to air combat (minus the Aim9Ls/R-60Ms they get for being slow attackers). They perform much better in ground RB because their strengths can be properly utilized for their role. It would also be quite effective in Sim with the reduced repair costs and higher rewards. You’ll also deal with less fighters overall since Sim games aren’t forced to be full.
I hate that you feel you’ve been ripped off somehow by purhcasing it and not being able to do what you wanted, but premiums don’t come with a promise of “you’ll be instantly successful at whatever you want to do”. Nothing they do with base bombing will really help your A6E at 10.3 because you’ll always be outclassed by faster aircraft that will always get to the bases before you.
The bases respawning extremely quickly was unintedned and was fixed. They didn’t change it to be that fast intentionally, and they corrected that problem. Probably because it is rediculous to allow players to just bomb and bomb and bomb because it kind of defeats the ovetall purpose of the mode.
If they didn’t want people bombing then just get rid of them all together? Now its just a teamkilling race to see who can get there fastest and it ruins the game. It didn’t lower the amount of people bombing and it just made it more toxic. If they want people fighting others more it should be incentivized higher. Just removing one of the only ways people can get through the game at a barely reasonable pace shouldn’t be how they “balance the game”.
It really is sad. The majority of games I see at least half the teams hauling bombs trying to race each other to the bases while avoiding combat with other players even if they are engaged. Way too often have I snuck behind a conga line of premium F-4s just to kill them without them even flying defensively just to then proceed to complain in chat.
The mindset of the majority of players seems to have become “mindlessly grind out thing and then wait for new thing in the next update to just do the same”.
And it’s not like we can go back to bases being meaningful objectives, at least with the current system and maps. It would just turn into a game of “do the bombers reach the base or do the interceptors reach the bombers first” with all of them flying in a straight line.
In my opinion in their current state bases should be removed as it hurts gameplay, even if they are the most efficient grinding tool. It promotes not being engaged in the game.
No, denmark and tunesia are the only EC map with carriers iirc.
Spain used to have them but gaijin removed carriers from it (or removed the version of the map with carriers). Either way, its very sad.
As a sidenote, Denmark is an arguably terrible map. Its actually pretty small and incredibly flat
Its better than garbage like Sinai or Tunesia though. Sinai is pverly flat as well and has nothing interesting nor any real point of interest either, while tunesia is incredibly small (or feels like it at the very least) and is mostly. Tunesia was even a major issue back when heli ec was a thing because of its topography making it near impossible to close the distanfe against the cancer Kamovs
I actually like Denmark a lot in Sim EC, but then I like the A-10, and for that aircraft’s role, Denmark is great (also for the A-6E, btw, to “stay on topic”…).
As map sizes go, Denmark is one of the 6 “large” maps with 128x128km. I’d also prefer larger maps for high tier, 128x128 is the absolute bearable minimum, all the small maps are completely unsuited I find for anything above, say, 10.3.
Here my personal assessment and view of the six “large” maps:
Afghanistan
Most mountainous of all maps
Weather often a really strong negative impact
High elevation of northern airfields may have strong impact on aircraft performance
Good for fighters requiring a more sneaky playstyle
Bad for bombing, as CCRP doesn’t work on high elevation targets, also bases are difficult to spot visually
Denmark
Only large map with significant naval forces and carriers
Very flat, impossible to hide anywhere or be sneaky
Great for attackers like A-10, thanks to proximity of ground battle events to airfields (at least for forces spawning south)
Good for base bombing, offering also possibility to divert to naval targets if a base gets “snacked” away
Rocky Canyon
Varying landscape thanks to large canyon, offering some interesting options
Weather sometimes a really strong negative impact, especially if spawning in the south (low visibility on airfields)
Sinai
Desert map, so air and ground targets are often visible form very far away (good and bad)
Suez Gulf separates map east/west, with west often moderately “safe” for bombers
Good for base bombing, bases also easily visible without aid
Great for attackers, ground battle targets are very easily visible
One of only two maps with convoys (offering more target opportunities - but they’re dangerous targets…)
Spain
Varying landscape, providing good cover in the mountains, but also ocean.
Surprisingly, it’s rarely seen in high tiers (haven’t flown it often myself either)
Vietnam
Varying landscape, providing good cover in the mountains, but unfair distribution north/south
Interesting for fighters, bombers, attackers alike
Can be tricky for attackers as ground battle targets are sometimes difficult to see
One of only two maps with convoys (offering more target opportunities - but they’re dangerous targets…)
But generally I really hope they introduce 256x256 maps soon, especially when advanced Fox 3 missiles come. AMRAAM on a 64x64km map is just ridiculous…
The consequences of conceiving certain vehicles as mere tools or transit means to progress in the vehicle hierarchy, rather than presenting them as integral options to enrich specific gameplay styles as destination vehicles.
Is there anyone who truly enjoys piloting a bomber, finding competitive and immersive value in them as they would with top-tier beasts (because apparently everyone longs to get there, to the point of self sacrifice), or do they simply use them to accumulate profit points without dedicating real interest?"
I actually enjoy playing bombers and attackers, not for grinding, but as a playstyle.
My Sim EC career actually started with the A-7D, then later got the A-6E when it came out, enjoyed both a lot. Then of course Harrier (mostly Gr.1) and Milan. Even later, I got the Tornado IDS MFG, and like this one very much as well. There’s something about sneaking towards a target at treetop level, evading enemy air defense and dropping a load of iron onto a target that I always liked…
Sure, flying fighters and besting your (human) opponent in aerial combat is very interesting and especially fulfilling, but that does not mean that a bomber or attacker playstyle can not be enjoyed, or must be used only for grinding trees and events.
You and me both, ive been begging for larger maps for a while. You’re the game master, you have a lil more pull id think
Id also love to see maps like Guiana Highlands, Mountain Ridge, Pacific Hidden Base, and Alpine meadows reworked and rescaled to max in-game size. I had made a suggestion on the old forums, but trying to remake it on this mew forum and it got killed 8x in a row so I gave up.
Flying bombers/attackers is nice and unique, I just wished bombing targets actually had value to the match. Make them GBAD sites or ground based radar or something, give people a reason to bomb them beyond RP and tickets…
Nope, not those (at best) semi-fictional maps please! I’d rather have realistic scenarios and scenery: Balkans, Southern Iraq/Kuwait, maybe even Kamtschatka, Bering Street, Northern Sweden/Murmansk, Central Europe…
All those would be (alternative) historically and geographically/topologically interesting playgrounds…
Guiana highlands is a real place though… so is mountain Ridge (himalayas), and alpine meadows is the alps iirc… the only one thats fictional afaik is PHB.
Theyd all be great maps for adding terrain amd being overall interesting maps, and would reduce the work load on gaijins map designers
So by spending $80 you find yourself in a horrible position that a F2P player would never be in plus you are that much poorer,so why should anybody pay to play this game?
In all fairness I’ve heard some people find joy in playing bombers due to genuine interest but even they demand changes.
Hell, I myself take attackers into ARB to groundpound because I enjoy it as a concept and am interested in strike aircraft.
I wouldnt agree to that: Those maps have a certain esthetic and the name fitting for it, but are not realistically modelled after their namesake.
Instead of Alpine Meadows, for example, the air map of the ground location Frozen Pass, would be much more realistic as an “Alpine” scenery, as it’s actually quite well modelled after the surroundings of Innsbruck, Austria…
Guiana highlands is almost perfectly modelling the irl location tho… god i wish the pictures were working rn. You can google it though, its really easy
Not to say that there arent other great mountainous maps that could be based on irl locales, just that these maps already exist in-game. Adjusting them to EC size would be less work than making ehole new maps…
Actually, I was referring to the outdated piston bombers; like the P.108 or the B-25.
I don’t doubt that some minorities find certain enjoyment in their own personal logic. However, it’s extremely difficult to perceive an immersive value in them, that is, to feel that they truly integrate into the game world in a coherent manner with the realities of war. Nor inherent competitive value that contributes to the player’s success in competitive situations or the achievement of common objectives. They fail to effectively integrate into a legitimate style of gameplay; rather, they remain as marginal solutions, seeking to provide some useful purpose, such as the “speedrun” bomber that head straight to the nearest base or the 30 tons “turret fighter” that that take off without bombs.
