Do you think the introduction of Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs), such as the AGM-88 HARM or the British ALARM, could revitalize some vehicles that are currently forgotten or out of place? Take the Tornado as an example.
- Yes
- No
0
voters
No.
The problem with Strike Aircraft and Bombers in all BRs of Air RB is the fact that PvP alone is able to win battles. Strikers and Bombers are not built for this job, and if they can do it at all, they aren’t very good at it barring exceptionally stupid opponents.
De-throning PvP is the only way to make Air RB as a mode move forward at all BR ranges, especially jets where almost every plane has substantial multi-role loadouts.
PvP should still be important, but it should NOT be capable of ending matches all on its own. All real battles were ultimately won by either 1) protecting/destroying a ground/naval asset or 2) preventing the enemy side from doing the same.
Air superiority on its own does not win real battles in the real world, so why should it in a game mode labeled “Realistic”? What Air Superiority did in real battles was enable CAS and Bombers to do their jobs, but in War Thunder, Aerial Superiority is the win condition.
All planes can PvE, but not all can PvP, and of those that can, not all of those are actually good at PvP.
3 Likes
Directly, probably not.
Indirectly… maybe.
Let me explain. The addition of ARM itself, even under best case scenario like ALARM on the Tornado GR1/GR4 where 2 can be taken no matter what and 4-6 can be taken whilst still maintaining a base killing amount of bombs… is only going to be an extremely minor and niche upgrade, maybe allowing a few extra AI kills per match, providing there is something too shoot at (in current versions of the gamemode)
Now I could list a number of specific issues for various ground attackers (Such as the Tornados FM or the GR1s stupid BR & engine choice ) or issues that affect every ground attacker (such as compression, diminishing returns or how BR is decided for weak A2A ground attackers)
but one of the biggest issue right now is a lack of gameplay, lack of something you can actually do in a ground attacker that matters and more importantly that is fun. Even in a gamemode like ASB where something like the Tornado IDS is actually kinda decent… there just isnt anything really to do.
That, is where ARM might, just might change things. If we get even 10% of the current April Fools event added to ARB and ASB, and they actually update core parts of the ground attacker gameplay, through things like adding new objectives (such as versions of the deep strike event target or the current ammo store bases…) then just maybe, ground attackers will have more value and be more fun, and that is the single greatest buff Gaijin could give to forgotten strike aircraft. (though they still need fix the aforementioned issue too before they would be considered somewhat “healthy”)
1 Like
Only with the addition of AI radars and anti air batteries that actually matter for the match’s progress
I voted yes but for certain strike craft it won’t be that much of a difference.
What they WILL make a difference for is identifying where AA is.
Turning it on and getting a location of AA on the map is a game changer. 1 HARM will be the meta lol
2 Likes
All depends how they model ground EC battles… in the nuclear thunder ground pounding is worthless becuse it does not give you an edge over enemies / too strong aa / and not efficient for grinding…
Lesser the vehicle spawn (specially AA) throw airfields even more further apart on the entire map and it will be fun… right now too much of a hellshow
Not with how they implemented them into the event. right now they are beyond useless
Spoiler
1 Like
I am glad to see more and more people are coming around to what I have been saying on the old and new forums for the better part of a decade.
1 Like
From a GRB perspective they would form the corollary letting Gaijin revamp (significantly increase) the SP costs of guided ordnance, with less risk so it becomes far less common.
Meaning that the quantity of stowed kills carried by a given CAS airframe should see a decrease, and that ARMs are very much targeted and a useful method for preserving the place of unguided ordnance. And as they only (for the most part) target emitting Radars they come with their own hard-counter, at the expense of situational awareness.
I do think that the addition of static EW radars should also be added to maps to help tamp down on the effective use of standoff ordnance by providing cueing to CAP Fighters.
Yeah…no. Any level of SP increase is something I have vehemently been against. Why? The best counter to a plane will always be another plane. A large part of why CAS is so messy is precisely because it is gated behind a SP wall.
Instead, among many other things, we need a Simulator-inspired SP system. 1k SP per player at start, no ability to earn more through any action whatsoever, obviously coming with forced runway start for everything and ditching the kill camera. Does this mean that top tier “super-CAS” are theoretically first spawns? Yes - but so are ALL of the fighters people would kill those with.
Say in such a system, you get your 1000SP at start, and your stacked CAS costs 850-900 of that starting pool to bring out. Unless you do exceptionally well every game, you will be shot down by something and be a net loss to your team due to being unable to use more than maybe one tank. And with fighters seeking to shoot down your ordinance-laden plane present from the get-go, the chances of being shot down are considerably higher than currently.
This system only favors CAS in Simulator due to the complexity of Simulator plane controls compared with relatively easy CAS weapon controls - RB would not have this problem and if anything see the opposite develop, which is intentional.
We have been seeing snail stuck in a loop of “just nerf it and hope it’ll go away” for over a decade - if it hasn’t worked already, it clearly won’t work with more nerfing - isn’t trying the same thing and expecting a different result the literal definition of insanity?
It’s not about countering an aircraft directly, but moderating the average quantity of Stowed Kills carried per flyout, and effectively incentivizing loadouts being either downloaded, or moderated to more readily serve a utility function.
Its similar to the inclusion of Droptanks in a CAP loadout, it lets you reactively de-mass the airframe at the drop of a hat without having to account for Fuel jettison so serve as an easy way to potentially get a significant edge, at an increase risk of running out of fuel.
Having ARMs means that radar equipt vehicles should need to practice some sort of EMCON, and confers additional advantages to others that use non-radar Sensors to facilitate Search, Track or Guidance functions.
No, it because all nations need to try to keep pace with a specific nation that questionably keeps receiving relatively favorable additions, with no consideration that other nations do not use similar doctrinal approach, and so do not have anything close to resembling a direct counterpart.
As such those arbitrarily stuck with less performant systems are going to run into issues more often.
Going to stop you right there, GSB is demonstrably even more skewed than RB is. We really don’t need to export it’s balancing issues elsewhere. They won’t fix anything without a much larger exhaustive overhaul are rebalancing effort, which would be better expended elsewhere.
So how would one spawn a nuke then if there is no way to acquire the 2,500 SP you need to spawn one in? Also ODLs, via lack of SP would be far more common, with a deleterious effect on initial spawns of ground vehicles.
What about maps with Airfields that have runways that straight up don’t support the takeoff run of vehicles? These sorts of blanket changes can’t happen in a vacuum. or Spawn camping since now there is certainty that once air superiority is achieved there is no way to meaningfully contest it, (or deal with Chainsaw-type tactics; repeated sequential bombing using GPS aided Glide and Cruise ordnance of a static location destroying Threats as soon as they spawn in since the location is known, or similarly with Scout drones feeding info to SPGs for NLOS fires).
I’d be better if they were permitted to select their own spawn location (and altitude) at any arbitrary location within a preset zone that was spread across two edges of the map.
It’s not a problem in Gaijin’s eyes if you are doing what you are supposed to (not sit in one location). and it provides instant feedback to those less willing to engage with some mechanics. Though with the integration of of the hit analysis with replays, it plays a less critical part in permitting an understand of the how it happened, since a lot of critical mechanics at play aren’t exactly explained well.
Why would you want to import an issue that plagues sim wholesale with no mitigations?
And make it easier for the median player to sabotage teams?
Considering just how quickly F&F ordnance can be sent on it’s way, and the difficulty of intercepting said munitions with an aircraft it’s not going to take a great disparity in leakers to irrevocably skew a team’s pool of SP and curtail their ability to respond in the late game. And I don’t partially trust that average players are going to have suitable team compositions with how much communication is going on.