After playing a few matches of this “New” mode, I’ve come to the conclusion the its just as unbalanced as the first time. The US teams is getting steamrolled so far, just like the last time.
The f4e just isn’t a good enough platform to go into a mission where you don’t know where the target is, you have no guided ordinance, and you have no way of knowing whats destroyed and what isn’t.
About that last part, I’ve played a few games where the US team does good, but ends up losing anyways because no one no where the last 20 or so targets are, and even after someone manages to get a rocket/bomb run in, they’ll destroy 1-2 targets…
I would like to keep playing Deep Strike, and I was pretty excited for it the first time, but what exactly is Gaijin testing at this point? It was pretty obvious that the gamemode was unbalanced, what was the point of adding it again without any meaningful changes?
Changes I think would help would better ordinace options, multiple targets, better rewards for killing ground targets, and winning should be based on tickets. If most of the target is destroyed, a few cooling towers shouldn’t be cause to lose the game.
I understand not wanting attackers to abandon the ground strike role, but right now that role is unrewarding and very difficult. If ground strike was important for something other than winning, which also needs better incentives, you wouldn’t have to worry about this.
3 Likes
The objective would be excellent in a long haul gamemode like Air EC (Air Sim and maybe in the future an RB EC gamemode) where you have time for both SEAD and many sorties, but as a standalone gamemode, limited to only a single fixed wing per side…
Its just not balance nor fun beyond the gimmick of it
9 Likes
Never success finish destroying all the target when playing US. I have player tens of times, the only win is done by elimiating all MiG 21s.
1 Like
Some asymmetrical escort missions would be cool too, it gives people both fighter/attacker roles. Tornado and F-16A vs MiG-29 or something like that. I didn’t like the F-4 vs MiG-21 flavor, it got stale and felt pretty unbalanced, given that the air defenses, once again, were extremely accurate and overpowered and having to do BOTH Strike/Fighter roles at once felt extremely overwhelming.
That’s why the attacker side needs both a fighter and strike role on the team. Trying to do everything at once felt exhausting and not rewarding in the slightest, playing the defending side felt like a breeze since the AA did most of the work, and you had no bombs or rockets slowing you down.
Helicopters could be straight up removed, or move the time period up to allow for Hellfires…
Its only a trial gamemode.
1 Like
Gaijin should get off their high horse and create an event mode with markers, like in Arcade.
1 Like
Am I the only one that kind of wants ARB EC PVE?
8 Likes
u can get most of this experience with just regular ec
See the only problem with that is its a good idea. The devs don’t like those.
I agree there are a lot of things that need adjusting, but at it’s core this game mode is a really good idea and super fun. I like the lack of enemy markers, it reduces fur balling and increases the value of climbing/positioning to take someone by surprise (as either team).
In addition to your frustrations over destroying the last few buildings, or a better win/loss condition, and the need for better precision weapons; I believe we need some sort of SEAD mechanics as well as weather being limited.
Giving people more time, and spawns to carry out SEAD runs before making passes at the actual objective would lead to more variety of play, giving people more options to interact with the game mode, as well open up new team tactics/strategies. Do you prioritize SEAD to open a bath for dumb bombs, or do you prioritize speed and launch precision strikes from high and far with guided munitions or rockets.
I also thing the idea of conducting a strike on a cloudy day when all your weapons are visual only, and 100% destruction is a requirment is just silly. Common sense says if you can’t aim the weapons don’t do the attack, so in my opinion this game mode should be limited to light clouds at the very most. In my most recent match during the even we were playing on Golan Heights. The objective was in the mountains in the east, and completely surrounded by clouds, aiming rockets at buildings became impossible. A different solution to limitting weather conditions would be setting a critical % of destruction to count as victory. Lets say 80% of buildings destroyed, This means carpet bombing becomes more feasible and having to dive through the clouds and SPAA cover is no longer required. If you want to incentivize 100% destruction you can simply add a rewards multiplier if the attacking team destroys all buildings.
I really love this mode, and would love to see it expanded to other eras and nations, but it does need some work. I hope we can see that in the future.
1 Like
They tried that a year or two ago where you either escorted or attacked bomber formations. I recall it being unbalanced, the attackers usually won.
Kinda shows how difficult asymmetric missions are from a game design/balance perspective.
Yeah the US team really shouldn’t have to destroy every last building, it should be considered destroyed at 80% or something close to that
3 Likes
yeah, once you destroy all the big important fluid tanks and machinery its kind of useless
The Helicopters are extremely disadvantaged also. Attempting to keep a TOW missile tracking on target when the enemy AA can engage and destroy you from about 8k away. Even when you’re barely peaking over a ridge.
I’ve only managed to get a team who killed all targets 1 time for a Victory on the US side.
It would be nice to do a mission like that as long as both teams had bombers and fighters each trying to bomb a different point. Teams would have to split up to escort in one area while others attacked the bombers formation. It would leave it more balanced that way.