Fair point lol
I just hope that the final game mode will not have cheap nukes, I guess
Having elements from Deep Strike involved as well would be cool though, but if they really just end up going with what’s popular, Deep Strike will probably be dropped
Tbh deep strike wasnt really my thing either, I found nuclear escalation far more enjoyable. Though I agree nukes shouldn’t necessarily be the main thing about the mode
I think Deep Strike has/had some potential, but it’s more that I would like to see what Nuclear Strike is right now with an asymmetrical version and potentially with Helis involved
Please consider this a crew experience! More elite crews, greater range to fire, greater accuracy! Its a joke at this time. Just one example: At this time fire range is 0,16 at base, but only 0,21km at elite top crew! its 0,05km difference. Its really almost nothing. Make the elite crew bombers harder!
I suggest raise this distance. The base stays: 0,16km. But raise at the top elite crew to 0,55km. In the world war 2 the bomber crew start firing between 365-900m. The lethal zone was in between 365 - 550m. So at least with elite crew make it happens, not the longest shooting range (0,9km), but at least the lethal one: 0,55km
Not the 0,21km…
Of course, these shouldn’t be the small improvised campsites we currently have as bases - they aren’t even realistic targets for heavy bomb loads to begin with. We’re talking about a complete rework of the target scale and modeling logic, built around individual modules.
A basic target could be a 0.3 km x 1.0 km grid with different building arrangements in it - parameters that would change dynamically from map to map. Sometimes the grid might be aligned east-west, forcing you to adjust your approach angle if you want to maximize your hit rate.
You should also be provided with a target sheet in the menu with all the needed data. It wouldn’t be blind searching or guesswork bombing at all - you can and should plan ahead.
Well, they’d better pay attention!
Nor is it about offering a completely sanitized gameplay nor constantly holding the player’s hand just because they might fail. To begin with, if we couldn’t handle losing, we wouldn’t even be playing a highly competitive game like this.
We shouldn’t forget that without risk and effort, nothing feels earned - and without that, completion brings no satisfaction. Current bombing gameplay suffers from precisely that
I also don’t think it would be frustrating. True frustration comes from having no control over the situation or feeling like the system is unfair, like getting shot down by a single 20mm hit with no chance to react. Just requiring a player to navigate to a specific location using the map -which already gives you your exact position and heading- and then visually identify the target isn’t unfair; at most, demands more focus. And certainly, completing it successfully will feel far more rewarding to the player than the current system could.
I share the idea that ground targets should also lose their markers and become dynamic, similar to how CAS feels in Ground Battles. Everyone will agree that there is a huge difference in enjoyment between destroying a tank in GB - where you have to actively search for and visually identify your target, posing a real challenge - and destroying one in Air Battles, where they are all marked on the map and follow completely predictable paths
Still better than now
Oh yeah helis would be really cool, would give a reason to grind/play them for people like me who don’t play ground
That too
I completely forgot about this mode i assumed it was related to NE mode
Oh, ok, I misunderstood you. I’m an RB player mainly. Engagement range on gunners is so low that it’s hard to even tell whether they have targeting issues that manifest more obviously in arcade.
I believe the Nuclear Escalation mode is a result of their work on Aerial Warfare, similar to how Deep Strike probably was a way to test features that I would expect to show up in Aerial Warfare
In reality, shortening the match duration was driven by economic considerations—the main goal was to cut down on the maximum amount of RP that could be farmed without boosters
Yeah - why I usually try to make it clear when I post I’m an Arcade player (sometimes I forget to) cause there is a ‘experience may vary’ cause of any different rules or weird decisions they’ve made, like how RB players will talk about going low to use ground clutter to fool missiles - but ground clutter doesn’t exist in Arcade for radars so we can’t.
But yeah - stat card says our max gunners with ace in Arcade start tracking a plane at 1.07 km, and start firing at .8 km, granted the tracking range should maybe increase some since it’s ‘gunner seeing the guy coming in and getting ready to shoot them’ and pretty sure that can be done from further out in reality considering frontal attacks gunners usually opened up further out closer to 1000 yds, which is over 900 m, and maybe solve some of the ‘surprise’ attacks where you can see the guy on the pseudo-radar we have so he’s spotted but can end up ramming me without ever getting shot at, but sometimes you get lucky and get a kill or more, most of the time gunners are useless. Even if you don’t have ace but just maxed training and expert qualification - it’s still 1.04 km tracking and .74 km firing so it should still be effective.
I can only guess then how short your guys range is in RB, but yeah - Arcade makes it clear that gunners at times can’t even hit the broadside of a PBM - literally. Like - it’s as bad as Naval AA gunners used to be (those actually need a bit of a nerf and/or they need to fix the tech trees to not have late and post war stuff against early-mid war stuff) but slightly better than Naval secondary gunners who can’t hit the broadside of Yamato at 300 meters even with max expert training which makes no damn sense because even the guys from Spaceballs could hit that.
there should be basicaly 3 different “air modes” one for fighters and only fighters. like TDM. Than we would need a bomber gameplay. with one target that the bombers have to reach. There is no base stealing possible as the base has “infinit” life. Teams would be like 12 bombers + 4 fighters or mayebe 8/8 or 10(bombers) /6 vs 16 fighters. fighers basicaly have to stop the bombers. And for cas planes basicaly the same (or similar to nuclear thunder) ground targets that cant be stolen so that teamplay make more sense than being an egoist.
Diving as bomber to be “faster” at the base makes you die to enemy fighters but in group + fighter escord should keep you alive to drop.
And you as player choose which mode you want to join.
I don’t think there should be a Fighter-only mode. Not because I disagree with the idea, but because it should be open for certain non-fighters.
There are plenty of Strike planes and even some Bombers that can be very effective in the Fighter role.
A special Bomber mode should be PvE, a bit the Assault mode, but the players are the attackers, not the defenders.
CAS planes in general don’t need their own mode, they just need one where they can properly work alongside Fighters, which ARB would be, if Gaijin didn’t nerf Ticket drain so much.
Hopefully we can also see a change to what is honestly the bigger issue- the gunners having terrible aim and not shooting until they can see the whites of the enemy’s eyes
The Japanese air tree is an example of FAFO. Players dont want to learn how to fight something so gaijin just moves it up to an undeserved BR
It’s a bit weird that they are so limited from a realism standpoint, but people would lose their minds, if Gaijin buffed the gunners on planes
With an aced crew they start tracking at like 600m, but only start shooting at ranges below 200m
Let alone the artificial spread that some turrets have
