F22 will cone only with other nations equivalent and not any time sooner
Bollocks, America will have the F-22 for half a year and then cry when China and Russia gets the Su-57 and J-20.
6 Likes
The chance of this happening is scaringly high
2 Likes
F22 doesn’t belong in War Thunder in War Thunder’s current state.
Before even thinking of adding 5th gen from a sim perspective, Gaijin needs to improve gameplay by updating objectives and AI behaviors, adding more objectives, adding more maps to sim, etc. Just like this thread is about. Otherwise 5th gen will be worse than 4th gens in terms of what they did to the current state of the game.
And I’m sure RB would like updated objectives and AI with the addition of EC maps to RB as well before 5th gens get added.
4 Likes
That’s what I’m worried about. 5th gens get added because "hype, and money"before game improvements, etc.
Watch, there will be a YF-22 prototype premium for the US in the future to milk idiotic US mains for money, just like they did with F-20A and F/A-18C Early… Meanwhile there’s no higher rank Soviet/Russian, Chinese or French premium.
1 Like
What about rewarding two minits after the acion? You kill, survie for two minits and get a reward?
And then J-out and respawn? ))
Bot farmers will be happy )
1 Like
Well, yes, but there can be a cooldown, if you J out mid flight with no damige you get a cooldown for 7minits? Just like in RAB.
Why would you want more maps? The gameplay is the problem roflmao.
Batter would be haveing bigger maps then more.
I disagree.
Currently we have very few maps (Afghanistan, part of Vietnam and Spain) where terrain plays a role and can be used tactically. The rest are basically just flat.
I’d be all for more maps with interesting terrain, like for example the Alps…
5 Likes
Oh no… This will harm “sim” players that takeoff, spam 120s and just watch.
Most of the world is just flat plains. That’s how plane combat goes, there’s air all around you and nothing else. We don’t need more maps with interesting terrain. Dogfighting in the mountains is primarily seen in movies.
It’s the same as with ships, you have water all around you and nothing else. It’s just as stupid as making every naval map with islands.
I get your desire for dogfights, but artificially forcing them by making every map a mountain maze is not the way.
Tank maps are already pretty much mazes only and it’s not fun to play a Leopard in the city all the time, when it can easily snipe at 2-3km with a laser range finder.
If you dislike flat maps because of multipathing, then maybe I don’t know, nerf multipathing???
1 Like
Having a map that makes carrier ops more relevant without punishing axis (Germany, Italy) for not having carrier-capable aircraft compared to allies (both US and UK have lots of carrier capable aircraft, only USSR suffers), especially through assymetry (Allies start ~32 km from objectives. Axis start ~100km from objectives if not carrier capable) would be very nice for prop tier ASB.
At the moment only Denmark and Dover strait exist. Denmark is assymetric (axis may not have useful airfields near objectives or if they do, they’re spawncamped while allies are 16-32km from objectives at all times without even having to use carriers), and Dover has no air superiority missions and bomber escorts get bugged out into guaranteed kills (they circle around D4 for infinity).
Tunisia/Siciliy/Moresby have carriers, but the carriers lack utility more often than not. Moresby has the most utility, but it’s also moresby where the ground is so dark as to make it annoying to play on .
Fwiw, I’m talking from 3.0-5.7 pov.
Yes, and 500+ km between your and enemy airbases.
I need a 10X bigger map or at least a complex terrain to have ability to hide and think and avoid missile spam towards my airfield.
I agree, we need bigger maps. 10 times bigger is maybe a little excessive, even dcs doesn’t have 1280x1280km maps I think, but 2-5 times bigger for sure. If maps got any larger than that I would want air refueling.
1 Like
Close to that numbers )
Syria is 1000x900 km
Sinai is 1500x1000 km
Detailed area is a little smaller, but anyway…
This square inside default detailed Caucasus map is 128x128km – the beiggest map size in WT.
I think I will be able to fit dozen of them inside this map )
1 Like
More maps, improved objectives = better gameplay
My point was that if even for DCS this is about the largest map size, then War Thunder isn’t ready for maps THAT big, when we don’t have AWACS, air refueling etc. and War Thunder straight up just isn’t a simulator.
Bigger maps sure, of course, but not THAT big. These maps are bigger than many countries lmao.