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.
…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.
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.
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 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.
I have already given a list. For example: The surveillance aircraft, if the surveillance aircraft was an F-4 Phantom (to simulate an RF-4) for blue side and have it at an actual recon altitude of at least 30,000 feet (about 9000m) or above. Or say a MiG 27 also at the same altitude for red side or maybe a J8. Yeah, players would have to climb a bit. But there’s also Fox 3’s. They wouldn’t be that hard to take out with a Fox 1 or especially a Fox 3. Same with bombers or attacker’s. It’s basically just updating the aircraft model used for said objective to match the BR/era of the BR rotation.
Simulator EC is dying slowly because it’s gameplay is so boring. That and players usually tend to leave after so many deaths. There’s usually only a few top tier matches above 13.0 going on at once throughout the day. And usually it’s Denmark, Sinai, Tunisia, Stalingrad or some other mostly flat and/or small map. It’s the same thing over and over.
If they updated the AI, objectives, added more maps, it would bring some flavor to the higher BR’s again for sim EC.
I’m reluctant to ask for any changes because recent experience suggests any change will make things worse.
One thing they could do is simply make airfields work like they said they would in the devblog, ie repair properly and not disappear when destroyed.
Fixing radar laid SPAA would also greatly increase the variety of targets available at some BRs.
More bases on some maps or, perhaps more realistic, simply make bases tougher. Much tougher. There’s no reason players ‘have’ to kill one or more bases per sortie as you still get a reward for the tonnage - an ‘ok’ reward based on what I was getting in unspaded attackers which could not destroy a base while stock. Quite a good reward if you consider the difficulty/risk and compare with difficulty/risk v reward in doing CAS or capping a zone.
I do not think it will help much. In PvP battles you cannot focus on completing PvE tasks. If bots will be modern planes with effective weapons, they will complete their task quite effective, hence players will have much less chances to destroy them.
You talk about the mini missens we have in sim, but what I think is the worst is the rewarding system, you have to pay an joining price so -15k just for joining the game, than you hope to not be shot down in first 15min or you earn nothing and only loose no matter what you do in the game. Even if you get about 5 kills and than die within 10mins you are still in minus.
This rewarding system almost punish players for playing. Bomber or attacker who just bomb bases dont worry about that becouse thay dont take any risk, but fighters?
Sim is like pay to play, because if you deside to play you go there with no hope of any profit, maby just resurche poins but thats all.
If I score 5 kills and die in realistic battles in F15C I would get 13 to 15K of SL for each and - 15K for the death, nomatter the time I spent in the game. Outcome is still 60K SL in realistic.
Now sim:
All this happend in 10mins or so.
Sim might be rewardet batter since its harrder than realistic so for kill should be about 20K SL?
The main problem why players hate AirSim is the rewarding system it has.
I personally would like more if thay give as the normal rewarding ratter than new objectives.
I agree. The economy has faults. But this isn’t true. Typically, a fighter can defend themselves against another fighter and can remain fairly defensive, they don’t even necessarily have to leave the relative sanctuary of their side of the map and yet still get kills and score.
A strike aircraft is usually dead the moment they encounter an enemy fighter and must fly deep within the enemy territory and then sneak back out again.
If anything, the strike aircraft are more vulnerable.
The difference. The “fighter” is at the mercy of finding something to shoot down, but the “striker” isn’t necessarily.
Im also all for increasing the amount of SPAA (so long as it’s balanced fairly) but evading things like mig-23s or mig-29s in the Tornado GR1/GR4 respectively Is not as easy as you make out to be
But they can still wait on their side of map, defending against bombers/strike aircraft if they wanted to. They dont need to push to the other side of the map.
Then you get zero rewards, and attacking bombers/attackers means either risking blue-on-blue or getting close enough to confirm hostile - a range well within the bombers’ turret range while the bomber knows from kilometers out you were a hostile due to how auto-slew IFFs enemies even if they’re a tiny black speck behind a cloud.
So whatever reward a fighter can obtain always comes with risk of death or being crippled unless you’re significantly better than the opposition and are just sealclubbing/statpadding.
Another thing is that the UA cycle perfectly lines up with ground-pounding.
You take off, arrive to site ~7-9 minutes. Drop. RTB and enter landing pattern ~13 minutes and by the time you touch down, your UA cycle popped off and you get full reward. You always know how long it takes to drop ordnance and the objectives (Outside of arrows) are ever present on the minimap so there’s very little variance and thus risk of UA cycle “desyncing” with RTB cycle - outside of interception of course.
Whereas with a fighter you can be forced to RTB from an early dogfight (either due to damage or ammo), land and rearm before the first 15 minute cycle passes. Your options then are to loiter afk around the runway to wait for the rewards to pop-up and land again or take off and risk your next sortie taking ~20 minutes and thus miss out on the first cycle’s 20% landing bonus. I’ve lost quite a few landing bonuses not to dying, but simply RTBing too early for the first UA cycle to pop off and then staying in the air for “too long” due to air superiority points dragging it out or other “oh, I got sth to do” too late into my second UA cycle.
There is the thing that playing as a fighter or anything agains players, puts you in so big risk that its not worth the possible profit. You would always radder bomb a base and wait at the airfield than risk of death.
No plane is defence less, even F117 isnt.
Problem is that, playing sim is too big risk of SL lost than any other gamemod is.
And the Airdefence, I played F8E Crusider, navy airplane, so I took off from the carrier, or I tryed. There were two ennemy planes waiting for me, sooner than I got some speed IR missail got me. Carrier of a blue side doesnt do anything, it just exists.
This is true, but you play to fight and to have fun, not to be afraid of loseing SL. Its the rewarding that makes players play just less. Today it looks like: you get some bomb, bomb a base, and wait next 10mins at the airfield and than a again. So in the end every one is flying low to avoid everting and spend most of the time on the ground.
For me, it seems wrong.
