Needs a bit of polishing I think. Ideally some proper SEAD weapons, but I agree. As one of those mud mover players. Im all for a good challenge
Polishing changes:
You say somber, I see a free kill.
So American bias?
I think this would be really cool, like simulate the curvature of the earth
Yeah, it would, its always been my issue with SPAAGs like the Sidam 25s and Gerpards. Its not that they are deadly. its that they start pre-firing you the moment you enter within about 5km. If they had a reaction delay and took a few seconds before they started firing accurately + you could approach undetected somehow, they would be really fun targets to attack
Wild idea, a hot take, science fiction if you will - Teamwork.
Let’s think of a scenario: You plan to bomb Redfor bases on Denmark, covered by AA. But because you are not foaming at the mouth about maximum UA, you bring another bomber in so you get one each and spend as little time in enemy areas. You get two attackers with standoff weapons to clear the defenses just before you ingress, giving you a window. But hold on, the attackers can get attacked by fighters… so you bring two fighters to engage. Oh no, but the enemy can have more fighters in the area, so maybe to be sure bring three fighters with you as well. So that is a sortie of 2x bomber, 2x attacker, 3x fighter. Fighters go first to screen and CAP, attackers run SEAD and shorty after, the bombers deliver the payload and head back. Attackers assume a secondary fighter role and provide rear security with fighters until everyone is back at the base to get ready for another sortie. (Spielberg is now calling me, he wants to make this fantasy movie that will put Avatar, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Jurassic Park to shame.)
So we as players have all the tools to work around this EvPvEvPvP problem. If there is more bases, you bring more bombers, if there is more AA, you bring more attackers, if there is more enemy fighters… you bring more fighters. But at the same time the other team is trying to do the same and we arrive at the zero sum game.
In the real world of WT airsim though, figters will go to where the enemy is, not friendlies. If there is a constant furball in the middle of nowhere, they will go there to get kills and SL. While this happens, attackers will go for the ground battles to get ground kills and SL because all the fighters are occupied with the furball. Bombers pick up whatever bases to they can sneak up to and try to get as many as possible to get tonnage and SL. Inversely, bombers will not go for the bases covered by AA because it’s certain death, attackers will not attack the AA, because it’s way more dangerous than ground battle and fighters cannot afford flying 20 minutes escorting when nothing can happen. The game does nothing to incentvise teamork, there is no Tank-DPS-Healer dependency like in the MMORPGs, there is no rock-paper-scissors system. Just keep doing whatever you are doing until someone runs out of tickets or the timer runs out. Also no incentive to help anyone on your way back home for that sweet UA bonus. Others can get missiles up the engines all day (probably don’t even have to worry about going negative from prem time), so why would I waste my non-prem hard earned SL.
There aint no way in hell that random people would cooperate to such degrees. Clans/Communities maybe, but even then they will some someone else getting all the kills while they “help win the game” but get nothing in return… So they go “help” the fighters to get some kills and SL… and we are back at the start.
Conducted some simple tests yesterday (only in test flight), but with quite sobering results. I tested various aircraft and weapons against the hot AA targets in the southwest of the Denmark Test Flight Map (ADATS), the cold SPAA’s around the airfield, and Mission Target Bases.
A-7E, AGM-62 & LANA, 3000m:
AV-8B (NA), AGM-65G, Litening II, 3000m:
AV-8B (NA), Mk.83, Litening II, 2000m:
Buccaneer S.2B, Aj.168, Pave Spike, 3000m:
A-10C, GBU-39/B (SDB I), Sniper, 3000m:
JAS39C Gripen, GBU-64 JDAM-ER, Litening II, 3000m:
General observations:
(Note: this are just my personal observations: Maybe others have different experiences and observations…)
And with this we should attack such targets at 10.7:
= /
Denmark has ALWAYS been terribly designed… but designed around Rolands.
When you play as redfor and C7 doesn’t spawn an airfield it’s not worth joining the game… who wants to spend half the time flying over water??
and the NW corner doesn’t need FOUR airfields… sometimes FIVE!
Change it so they spawn in B1 and A4 and C7 of course and the problem is solved… the southern ones probably need tweaking too.
but if you want to bomb 5 minibases*** DONT PLAY DENMARK.
Rocky Canyon doesn’t have this issue
Vietnam doesn’t have this issue
Afghanistan doesn’t have this issue
Smolensk doesn’t have this issue
Spain doesn’t have this issue
Sinai doesn’t have this issue(?)
All 128 km2 maps with 5 bases… but rarely played because of stupid Denmark.
Denmark is my go-to map if I want to fly the Warthog. For everything else I find it also too flat (like most maps).
For Bases, but also Air/Air, I like Afghanistan very much, as the topography offers a lot of possibilities for offense and defense…
Agreed… flying the A-10C up the left side to kill SPAA with lower risk was also my goto when playing a thunderer wager…
PVP was on the right side… and you always knew where there would be at least 4 bases… but again, if C7 didn’t spawn it wasn’t playable since a fighter will spot you if they have to spawn in the NW corner.
but it’s still deathly boring to see 5 Denmark maps and nothing else for the BR…
let it die :p
That is a laughable comparison.
Those USA planes are leagues better.
Also, they’re both premium.
Cool, you can go buy the identical premium Su-22M4 in the german tree, which is more often than not in Red team.
Better at what? Su-17 and 22 are supersonic and very fast, unlike these two subsonics. The weapons load reflects this.
Unlike A-6E and AV-8, the soviet planes are also capable of defending themselves against fighters.
Yea denmark Is an Absolute dogshit map, would even be the worst one of stuff like Tunisia and dover strait didn’t exist
I still feel like I’m watching a player’s gameplay (only written).
The solution to the game is to fly from Bucanner on both the red and blue sides… Brilliant, don’t you think?
When dropping the Walleye from this altitude, the range will be about 15 km. You shouldn’t rely on the CCRP indication, it’s incorrect.
Since Denmark is constantly cloudy with a lower boundary of about 2,800 m, I launched the Maws from the Harrier at 13 km. That’s enough to hit the ItO and still have time to evade the return launch.
Sinai
I think the problem is that you’re approaching the target in the same exact way regardless of situation or munition you’re using? (like a zomber lol) Always at 2-3km altitude? I assume for some ‘testing purpose’ but it kind of misses the point people are trying to make about actually adapting, or learning to engage targets in different ways depending on munition and what you’re going for. I feel like you just made a comparison of what does and doesn’t work at 2-3km altitude approach (and approaching the test-flight adats from the same spawn-side where it’s obstructed by trees from that altitude every time?) I don’t have time or planes to recreate all of your tests but I went into test flight in simulator difficulty with 9.7 Ayit and had no problems taking out the Adats using the walleyes, not even any CCRP marker in the HUD aside from the target point mark. I’m not sure how you messed that one up. Is the SPAAG those moving targets?
For TV or IR seeker a lot of factors matter when it comes to if you can track stuff, so depends on weather / time of day and contrast. I could get accurate point tracks 15km out that destroyed the adats at pretty low altitude with AGM65G, you can likely extend that in better conditions, or lower it a lot on worse conditions. If you have worse conditions, it’s better to change your approach by selecting your target from a distance with target point or map and then approach close flying low and pop-up to launch
Also with the SDB’s, again this depends on how high and what speed you launch them as you know. They glide extremely far, you can easily make the full 30km of the targeting pod work, further if you mark on the map. Also SDB’s, or any GPS bomb for that matter is almost pin-point accurate if it has the means to reach there in the first place. Throw around a bunch of glide bombs at max range and you’ll see the grouping yourself. I made 2 gbu39’s work to destroy the 2 test-flight sead targets easily at 30km, just takes time to reach there
Rendering is absolutely an issue in some cases, mainly convoys going under ground. Trees can be annoying too but can be worked around
Exactly. The aim was just to get a baseline of “how far can I reach under certain compareable conditions”. Varying to many parameters makes comparing impossible.
The next step obviously would be to test and refine optimized envelopes/profiles/tactics for each situation/weapon/aircraft.
Hm, have to try again. Dropping the Walleyes from about 12, 13km out would result in a miss for me.
What’s really a pity is that we don’t have any useful information about the ballistics/gliding capabilities of those weapons, and as you say the CCRP marker in (some…) HUDs may be misleading or outright wrong.
Something like this would be useful for all those weapons:
…but I don’t even see what parameter in the weapons specs (in the respective blk files) would allow us to calculate or at least “guesstimate” such profiles…