couldnt agree more
I created a post exactly like that on the old forums last month, I may create it again with some of the updated Ideas. We have a Inter-war/WW2 era gameplay in Gen 3/4 Jets. It doesnt feel… Right
2 Likes
Yeah, I think you should . . .maybe they will pick up some ideas and implement them gradually, maybe not . . .cannot hurt to try
Yeah. where sim is concerned, its a back burner project (considering how few play it, thats not an entire surprise, but none the less, frustrating)
Created
1 Like
I think I just took out the Runway with 2x PGM-2000s. So that would mean it would only take approx 4k of bombs to destroy a runway. On the current map im on, there is only 3x AFs. A tornado Gr1 could theoretically end the match, in the first sorite on the game, within a few minutes
I reckon they will just increase the hit points and leave it at that
Yeah, wouldnt be so bad if it took 4 or 5 sorties per af, the fact you could, in theory, take out 2 to 3 afs in a single sortie, is the issue
1 Like
Unfortunately, that model of game play is exactly what reduces this to more of a “Go straight to the Market and deliver your goods and come straight home, there might be bandits” . .rinse and repeat to make a profit.
That’s not what the Air sim genre was ever about. It was always about the thrill of combat, reliving the danger, feeling like you were really there and facing the challenges of the time in the most iconic machines.
Each engagement was a Victory or defeat, the reward was out flying and out maneuvering the enemy fighter in a test of skill. Learning classic dogfighting and complex maneuvering in nail biting battles to emerge the victor.
Bomber Missions were a test of navigation and nerves and endurance, sneaking through enemy defenses AAA and fighters, finding the target and having the nerves to fly a steady course through the enemy fire to deliver bombs on target and then making your escape to make it home beaten battered but Alive.
WT has the capability to deliver all of this, instead for some reason it has been reduced to this economic accounting and find the air craft that can best exploit the economy.
Its unfair to the genre and unfair to players . . . SIM should be delivering a far deeper and complex experience, especially for modern combat.
For the sake of argument, lets try our hand at some simple maths and feel free to correct me where I go wrong. Lets take g=10 m/s^2 to make figures nice and round, bomber ingress at 6000 m and speed at 1000 Km/h . . .nice round figures.
x=ut+1/2at^2 initial vertical velocity of bombs dropping is 0 m/s so
t=sqrt((6000*2)/10))=34.64 sec for bombs to hit the ground from 6000 m
x=vt x= 1000* (34.64/36000) = 9.6 Km
So a bomber at 6000m travelling 1000 Kph will have to drop his bombs at 9.6 Km horizontal distance to hit his target, ignoring wind etc.
There is simply no way, in modern combat with decent missile systems and jet sentinels, that this bomber should be able to get any where near his launch parameters.
What is missing is Ground based Radars, missile systems, aggressive sentinels to actually make such a thing challenging.
Just increasing hit points . . .sadly thats just a cop out and plain lazy.
I would still suggest . .stop moving forward, do WW-I . . .that would give the breathing space to get these systems and game play in order and then come back and do it right.
1 Like
I like this and agree, Sim has huge potential for an amazing experience and even in it’s current state can give some really fun experiences.
AA realism and the tough economy for players are in direct competition. While the economy update helps players, it’s still balanced around fairly reduced AI AA capabilities. Rebalancing around tough realistic AA would be a major update touching on many pieces, likely including a significant overhaul of the AI boy logic.
I think my personal biggest priority for air sim would be changes that encourage more players to join at the mid-level BRs. I think the rotating BR brackets were a mostly positive change that definitely expanded the diversity of planes I fly.
I have mixed feelings about the current AF situation, as it makes for interesting small team play with a very clear objective (if all players know about it). One of the biggest issues for me is that I think it blocks new matches with bots, since it’s already very challenging to find games at some BRs. If you pretend that we have some of the runaway denial weapons, it’s not totally crazy from a realism standpoint.
2 Likes
I’d love to have JP233s on my Tornado Gr1. Having a dedicated wepaon system meant for destroying an AF wouldnt be so bad.
But yeah, agreed on all the AA points. I think RWR overhaul and AI overhaul needed first, then start adding more advanced AA. It would have to be a process otherwise it would be a slaughter
While yes, people should be encouraged to defend their airfields, rather than exchanging damage to each others airfield, one of the main problems is even spotting a plane. By the time the bombs land, the bomber has already turned and is some way away from the airfield, and you have no idea which way he exactly went since youve never seen him. I tried doing anti bombing strategy, but its very useless since you will just circle around the airfield (hope the enemy chooses that out of 3 to 5 airfields), and even if he chooses your airfield, you have to figure out the bombers altitude. Some people do low alt bombings 2 to 4km (missile / AA range) or some people do 7km+ bombings. It is very hard to spot. And to add insult to injury, he may see you before he drops his bombs, and go to a differnt airfield.
Heck, in high tier, you can be a lot further away than that. I can quite happily be at 50ft and lob bombs 5 or 6 km with higher accuracy with ease.
Or drop PGM-2000s from 10km away (should be 20km, but they have artificially nerfed the range of everyone) and you could be turned away and half way home long before they even hit.
It would help if airfield had ever been implemented as planned:
Airfields and modules are supposed to repair slowly, even if the tents have been destroyed.
The problem isn’t necessarily how many (few) sorties are needed to destroy a module, but that those sorties can be completed in 5 minutes by supersonic jets on postage-stamp-sized maps.
Imho Base bombing and Airfield bombing are both problematic and easily exploitable, and that’s what keeps happening, all the time, at all br. First of all because bombing is so easy, it should give out the LEAST reward, given that both doin CAS or fighting players is MUCH harder. They should make the task much harder, or give the defending team some kind of awacs or other form of early alert that warns you if a bomber is going towards a base. I really have no idea how to fix the problem, but honeslty right now it’s embarrassing, you see teams of people only bombing instead of doing cas or fighting.
2 Likes
It’s a shame too, because doing CAS tasks can be fun. Getting to utilize all the different ground attack weapons is fun if people were to give it a chance.
We need less motivation to go for airfields, and more ground tasks to complete for CAS vehicles. Also, there’s a strong need to tone down the base AA’s so CAS can successfully make a run without dying the first two seconds they enter the area.
Whilst you arent entirely wrong. They do need to be careful about how they change it. Because if they change it too radically, then jets like the Tornado IDS variants may end up with nothing to do in EC. It needs to reward fairly, but prehaps not have quite as significant affect on the match outcome. I find the winner of every EC game is rarely decided on PvP or objectives, but base bombing and prehaps that is all that needs to change in that regard. Though the AFs are another discussion entirely
I had some thoughts on how top tier ec at least could be changed in another post Discussion: Sim EC Mk2 - PvE updates for the next Gen of aircraft - #2 by Twisted
Yeah, its tricky in certain aircraft, especially with no CCRP
They need their union mandated coffee breaks