Yes. I like it
Yes preach
1 Like
There is no reason ALL the small maps shouldn’t also have 5 minibases instead of 2. And the large maps could easily spawn 8 too.
5 Likes
In all respect the mini maps suck. If you can successfully get 2 forward operating bases on Tunisia without being shot at by the whole enemy team then I salute you.
I would just recommend playing larger maps.
1 Like
Sounds like the job of a starfighter. Too bad they aren’t really in that BR bracket =)
you can’t do any type of gun run aswell in sb , the SPAA’s are impossible to fight without any long range ordnance including ships which are an even worse issue , even in low tiers where you might want to use a torpedo you can’t cuz the anti air will desintegrate your plane before you can even do anything, this is my biggest down side on the gamemode,
2 Likes
You’re forgetting that people play Tunisia with Rank 2 bombers… all maps need more objectives at all levels.
Three rank 2 bombers on Tunisia means a shitty time for everyone.
3 Likes
I do not think they will spend much effort on adding interesting and complicated objectives.
This game focuses on PvP battles only. It means we will always have symmetrical modes and maps.
They tried to introduce asymmetrical scenarios in World War mode. Not sure if they are planning to continue it.
Also it means that PvE objectives should not be too complicated, since they can be easily interrupted by enemy player.
For example, strike planes are nearly defenceless against fighter planes, so you should rely on your team to be able to focus on PvE objective. Hence, no complicated and interesting PvE objectives should be expected.
1 Like
Agree, i think that Gaijin doesnt realise that small changes can make a BIG difference. They should upgrade the “quality of life” in the game and THEN add more content :)
I think you misunderstand. This is not asking for PVE only. This is asking for an updated EC since they haven’t updated it in years.
Air Simulator mode is not a PVE mode. 50’s and 60’s objectives don’t make sense with player controlled aircraft that are in the 80’s to the 2000’s.
3 Likes
Did I say anything about PvE only mode? I specifically said about PvE objectives in current EC mode.
They do in current EC. Let me explain my point.
To complete 50’s objective playing 50’s plane your skill is precise drop of bomb.
It is easy to complete 50’s objective playing 2000’s plane, for sure.
Completing 2000’s objective requires decision making, analysis, target search. All of this means full focus on the objective. You cannot focus on 2000’s objective in intensive PvP battles.
That is why we have 50’s objectives. The main challenge to complete these objectives is enemy plane.
Or give me an example of 2000’s objective that is suitable for PvP battles?
1 Like
I also don’t think they will spend much time updating sim either because they haven’t touched it in over a year.
This is simply a post asking that they do something to finally update it.
Updating the objectives to match the era of aircraft wont take away the PvP. Just improve the game mode overall
2 Likes
I have updated my reply to you. Please, see the details above.
Also, would be great to see your vision on updating objectives.
I design my missions in a way they have 2000’s objectives. And players still cannot complete them…even without PvP component.
For maps to add in sim, I made the suggestion a few months ago for the addition of the tank map “frozen pass” as an air simulation map, it could be an incredible map for the mod that would bring a real new type of terrain
Concerning larger maps, I think on the contrary that it would be the solution to many problems, even the best possible solution. Having larger maps would force players to better manage their fuel (many planes would no longer be able to cross the map with their PC continuously on) in addition, it would force players to climb in altitude to gain efficiency, making the clashes more realistic. Then, larger maps would mean fewer spawn kills/airfields attacks, because it would force players to travel more distance and consume more fuel. Finally, it would also allow (finally) a little strategy, the engagement distances are currently far too short (we could finally react correctly to the F-14s coming at us at Mach 2)
Otherwise I completely agree with the points you raise.
1 Like
…and spawn more frequently. Maybe implement in a way that there’s always at least 3 bases, regardless of when the previous ones get destroyed: If down to less than three, immediately spawn a third, even if countdown not run through yet.
This is also a big issue often for ground battle events, which sometimes spawn very late, or don’t respawn at all after one has ended.
2 Likes
Not sure what is meant with 50’/60’s objectives here. Are we talking about quality of e.g. mission targets/bases?
Because here I see a great need but also big potential, if only they’d get away from those area targets and develop mission targets which consist of individual modules/buildings/structures/vehicles.
Makes little sense these days to bring guided weapons against bases, but if they’d consist of several individual elements that need to be knocked ot, not only would it be more challenging and thus interesting, but would go a long way to reduce the “base stealing” issue.
Same for airbases: Modular approach is ok-ish, but if for example the individual bunkers could be targeted and destroyed (with realistic strenght and thus demanding specific weapons), it would add so much more depth!
And: this would not hinder the use of unguided weapons: One can still try to hit specific elements, or carpet-bomb a base - of course with the result that one may be less effective in one run than employing precision weapons.
4 Likes
I think most of us don’t really expect new content.
Just fix the existing stuff and maybe give the surveillance plane a function (BRA call for nearest enemy would be so great, but I don’t have any hope…)
Maybe when Aces of Thunder is out and the hype is over they will turn a bit of attention back on SIM. If it’s not dead until then.
I would not expect anything before that
1 Like
I already proposed exactly the same idea long time ago. Maybe they still think about it, who knows.
Actually, we already have this thing is some extent. To be specific - battle zones (“arrows”) consist out of individual vehicles. But these “arrows” happen not so frequently.
But I am still not sure if it will help to create interesting gameplay for strike planes.
When I played Su-25 I could not complete even simple tasks because enemy team always outnumbered us. Even in fair battles it was nearly impossble to focus on PvE objectives.
The main issue in my opinion is that using precise weapon requires high altitude which is deadly at top tier.
I would have to lean with you on this. Probably one of the reason’s why they haven’t updated EC maps to begin with. Along with, they just don’t care because not many players play air simulator mode in the first place. And the money doesn’t come from simulator players, either.