When are you going to. Finally. Increase. The. Number. Of. Base ?
At high BRs, most of the times, there are way too much fighter/bombers and bombers in the air for the 4 bases.
Just, increase the number of bases. Please. It’s getting annoying.
You wanna know something? 2 f4’s of any variant have enough rockets to kill 4 bases in one sortie, know what else? All except fot the f4j (variants) can carry 4 sidewinders, plus 4 sparrows (f4j variants can only take 2 sparrows) yes 2 f4c’s can carry 2 bases of ordinance, plus 8 aam’s in a 9.0-10.0 match, meaning the other 14 players can’t get any base destruction themselves, because the f4 is that much faster than any non f4 (don’t know if anything can reach a base before an f4 whilst also carrying any ordinance, f111 is the only thing that beats all f4’s it in terms of raw ordinance, but if you want to sweep your wings, then it only gets 228 ffar’s (currently the best option for bases) vs the f4c’s 285 or f4j’s 247, it also doesn’t get any aam’s vs 8, and it isn’t as fast, but its 0.3 br higher than the f4c, for what reason, that eludes me) if you play anything from 9.0 to 11.3 its a coin-toss if you can damage a base at all should you have 2 phantoms, and all but impossible if there are more, might get lucky if there aren’t any or only one. Thank you for coming to my Ted™ talk.
Isn’t this more reason to add more bases
4 Likes
Why not go for ground targets then? With the amount of rockets & bombs & missiles (oh my!) that can be carried, wouldn’t you be able to get a few hard targets which would give a similar score/sl/rp gain of a base?
1 Like
Yes, but no reason to stop there, its more reason to overhaul both ARB and ASB into more complete gamemodes, the changes made this update were steps in the right direction, but there’s soooooooo much more they could be doing.
What? Use CCIP and special munitions to destroy specific targets? But that might take skill!! Absolutely not!!! No skill in my ARB matches. This is sarcasm, I would love for the devs to add something like this.
1 Like
The entire design of bases to bomb is so outdated. It also really sucks that friendly players are competing for bases. There really should be 1 or 2 large strategic bombing targets with a ton of health so multiple planes can work together to bomb them.
There also needs to be more ground objectives that actually give decent rewards. Like convoys, trains, container ships, etc.
The whole PVE design in Air RB is aweful and completely outdated.
1 Like
The whole game design is outdated, it’s the same it was 10 years ago, there is no innovation at all.
1 Like
No. In fact there should be fewer bases. As of now, the mechanic does nothing but promote passive play and afk grinding. The level 1 base bombing premium fighters that contribute nothing to the match shouldn’t be getting rewarded.
1 Like
Bombing of large static targets or small heavily fortified positions should require (or at least promote) the use of (preferably guided) heavy munitions. See the following:
Earthquake bombs, initially the shockwave of an explosion near the target was the intended method of destruction, but these would later turn into modern “Bunker Buster Bombs”: “Tall boy” and “Grand Slam” created and used by the British during WWII, the American T-10 later designated M-121, which were converted into “Tarzon” guided bombs, and later in Vietnam “Commando Vault” BLU-82 bombs were used to clear helicopter landing area’s using the M-121 warhead (an M-121 without fins or aerodynamic shrouds) such munitions would remain without further significant development (smaller cheaper units and types were created in this time) until operation Desert Storm, when the GBU/28 would be developed and used. Modern ordinance of the types: GBU/(10/15/24/27/28/37/57(sister to the “MOAB”)) developed and employed/stockpiled by USAF, and the KAB-1500L-Pr of the Russian Air Force.
The MOAB GBU/43 is an airburst munition designed to cover a large area of softer targets, or targets in a confined space, like a tunnel network or valley (of which its so far single operational use, was against) Similar munitions exist (FOAB - Russian response to the MOAB of disputed specifications) these two specific munitions have yields closer to the smallest nuclear warheads, (see the “Davey Crockett” and its M-388 a W54 nuclear warhead equipped shell) and wouldn’t be added to WT due to their delivery methods, however smaller bombs of the class could be added exclusively for use in air battles as they would be problematic in ground battles, and if they were added while restricted to use in air, other specialist ordinance could be added alongside, such as cluster munitions of various types (which would be extremely problematic if made available in ground battles).
As for targets to use these against, there exist like what we already have in game, some non-descript installation or depot of moderate size, without adding complexity smaller or larger versions could be added, or for more uniquely shaped targets, ether a damage saturation mechanic or assembling targets out of many smaller “units” to dissuade dumping all of ones munitions on one small area of the target, could be used to add actual gameplay value to non-uniform targets, rewarding players ability to either survive loitering in between strike runs, or skill in hitting a large portion of the target area in one or two quick passes. (This paragraph is the almost realistic suggestion)
New target types yet to be in game, could be large scale military targets (heavily defended - see below) Navies home base ports, strategic bomber home bases, command and control networks (both command centers, and less defended communication equipment), logistics infrastructure (while bridges do technically exist they are rarely seen in game, are not a target that impacts gamelpay, and are mostly seen in some of the test drive maps) ranging rail lines/junctions/stations to cargo ports or road depots, offshore drilling/refinery platforms, warehouse complexes and more, which would be locally defended by some light AAA/SPAAG/MANPADS, as opposed to military targets, which would feature fully fledged SAMS with integrated point defense SHORAD/CWIS (this is the role the 2s6(M), TOR, Phalanx and Pantsir are designed to perform IRL, that is, backing up more powerful longer-range air defense systems such as the US hawk system, or the soviet’s BUK or KUB systems which could be added purely as defensive units for air battles, as they don’t fit into ground battles) (The second half of this paragraph is the pipe dream)
Once again, thanks for coming to my Ted™ talk.
After sleeping on it, I have some further additions that might be interesting, for instance take a fuel depot, would it be better to attack it with conventional munitions? Or would a primarily incendiary strike (with a few conventional munitions to burst containment vessels) be a better alternative? Or perhaps a large runway, where cluster munitions (anti-runway cluster bombs/dispensers for the few aircraft that have access to them) or a large quantity of light bombs spread over a large area would be best for rendering the runway inoperable, whilst if the player still chooses to use fewer larger bombs, the damage done isn’t reparable during the match, allowing smaller less defended forward bases to be more reasonably disabled than the current ASB EC implementation, while punishing for a team that loses their airfields, a stronger emphasis on defending assets that may or may not be tied to victory conditions (IMO) will lead to more dynamic/interesting battles. Things like these could be added to differentiate targets and thusly require player judgment on what stores the wish to bring, what targets they wish to prioritize, and increase the likelihood of pre-battle communication of desired targets or tactics regarding how they might try and win such as: break enemy logistics slowing replenishment at airfields, striking ground unit bases so friendly ground units may progress, limiting the airfields they operate from, or attacking air defense systems to make subsequent attacks easier and safer. (ok I know consistent high-level communication such as tactics and target de-confliction in WT is nearly pure fantasy).
Also a couple of extra target types for consideration: (as described above) Fuel depot’s, helicopter bases/fob’s, improvised runways/temporary-road-based runways (could be used as forward spawns for slower aircraft, looking at a10/su25 and would alleviate destruction of friendly airfields) Another addition less tied to any active part of the match could be “no fire zones” unique for either team (only slight differences, one side can engage over area ‘x’ while the other team area ‘y’) as something for players to consider before or shortly after takeoff, when deciding to engage with the enemy or objectives (these areas could be played up as still containing civilians and neutral targets could be preset treated as friendly fire when damaged, an enemy hiding amongst them would almost certainly require high-precision yield appropriate weapons, considerations as to how the attack/strike is being made, and if too much collateral is present, and should reward players who successfully eliminate targets appropriately)(ok yea I’m really REALLY wishing here)