GRB aircraft SP/custom load out rework

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

Disclaimer:
This is not a thread to discuss TO mode or if CAS is op or not. All SP costs in this post are made up and only used to show the math of my idea. The SP costs are not to be taken as their true costs under the current system or my suggested costs.

Current aircraft SP system:
The current system is pretty simple and straight forward. An aircraft`s SP cost is (base SP cost)x(uptier/dowtier multiplier)+(cost of “most advanced” munition)+(AP belt).
While this is simple and easy to work with, it leads to some issues.
Current issues:
Under the current system, there is no distinction for the number of munitions that a plane carries.
EX: 1,000lb bomb = +100SP and 4x1,000lb bombs = +100SP
The system also fails to take “lesser” munitions into account as well.
EX: 2 GBUs = +150SP and 2GBUs+3x1,000lb bombs = +150SP

This leads to the current meta where load outs tend to just be “how much can I put on this plane before the wings break” as there is little reason to take a smaller load out when the SP costs are the same.

The rework:
Change the current system so that each munition has an itemised SP cost. This honestly should of been done with the addition of custom load outs but here is how I see it working.
EX: 1,000lb bomb = +100SP and 2x1,000lb bombs = +200SP
This would also work with "lesser munitions as well.
EX: 2x1,000lb bombs is +200SP and 2x1,000lb bombs+6HVARs(Each HVAR is +5SP) = +230SP

If possible, maybe further itemise for certain BR ranges as a 1,000lb bomb is less effective at 12.0 than 4.0.

Possible problem and its solution:
With this change, there will most likely be a need for many more custom load outs which could fill up the UI. A solution to this is to add the ability to create a temporary, for the match, custom load out from the load out screen before you spam the aircraft.

Why do any of this?
I would like to see this change as I believe it would help spice up the current meta and allow for more strategic load outs rather than the current method of “all or nothing”. This would also give a much more natural curve to the effectiveness of CAS at each SP step.

Why post this here and not suggestions?
I would like to get a better feel for how players feel about this and allow for more feedback before I take the effort to make a better thread in the suggestions section.

5 Likes
2

Yeah, this is a really big thing i’ve been thinking about. Though I think it is actually worse than that.

Because on something like the Tornado Gr1

Screenshot 2024-02-14 040616
Screenshot 2024-02-14 0406161010×687 281 KB

1x Mk13 LGB (1000lb) = 177SP
12x Mk13 LGB (1000lb) = 177SP
1x Mk13 GBU (1000lb)= 177SP
4x Mk13 GBU (1000lb) = 177SP
1x GBU-24 (2000lb) = 177SP
2x Mk13 GBU (1000lb) + 1x GBU-24 (2000lb) = 177SP

Loadout costs just… dont make any sense to me. There is no “penalty” as you said for taking the absolute max payload, but there is also no “reward” for taking different loadouts. LGBs at 11.3+ is really really dangerous (to use) and generally quite low reward. And yet it costs just as much as taking GBUs, sitting at 20k ft dropping them with relative safety and getting mutliple relatively easy kills

PS. I was just thinking about writing a post exactly like this one :D

3

Yeah. The current load outs make little sense SP cost-wise.

I got tired of typing it in all of the CAS threads so I figured why not make this and hopefully move it to suggestions. Maybe actually make this change happen.

2 Likes
4

I was actually thinking about a suggestion for this anyway, In air Sim, its actually kinda annoying not being able to make a loadout on the fly

1 Like
5

Yeah, one problem, one discussion. Keep it clean and simple. This in my opinion makes up 50-75% of the balancing issue with CAS currently. Fix it, you go a very very long way to sorting out CAS.

I think @Laserdestroy is working on some bits relating to this as well

6

Hopefully it says on this topic. Let us pray that the usual suspects dont turn this into a mud slinging competition.

1 Like
7

Yep, though thats what forum mods should hopefully deal with it

8

As for this bit. I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while myself and I was thinking a “minimum” loadout threshold. To keep things a little more balanced. Though that would require a semi-case by case basis ( or in BR brackets, like 1-6 (props and heavy bombers), 6-9 (jets) and 9+ (guided weapons including helis)

Again, to use my previous example. The Tornado Gr1.

Perhaps 4x LGBs (its “stock” loadout) would = 100SP
But additional LGBs (perhaps in pairs rather than singles) would increase that further. Perhaps for every additional 2x LGBs that would add 25SP cost or something. Just give aircraft a certain degree of minimum payload they can take with a “standard” SP cost and then additional payload on top of that increases that SP cost.

Like Apache could be 4x or 8x Hellfires = X
But each additional 2 hellfires adds an extra amount.

Id also kinda like to see SP costs be weighted more towards the loadout than the aircraft. So that the base cost of an aircraft is generally lower. Means CAP becomes more affordable, but that is almost another thread. Though would make it easier to balance out the cost of weapons by allowing greater fidelity

9

I am currently working on this exact thing as @Morvran said. I’m taking this chance to get a rebalance in that itemizes the weapons, and makes changes to costs of airframe vs a max payload. I envision it as a fighter being cheaper to spawn, with air to air weapons being sp cost being free, but ground attack payload being more expensive. For attackers, I envision having a more expensive airframe cost than fighters, but with grpund attack belts being free, and making ground attack payload cheaper than fighters. Bombers are going to be similar to attackers, but payloads will be very cheap in comparison because let’s just be honest, noone uses bombers other than the Pe-8 and Lancasters for the large bombs. Hopefully this can start encouraging people to pick a plane type and stick to it’s role.

1 Like
10

Its a good idea tying base SP cost to aircraft type (though one or two aircraft i’d like to see change aircraft type like the Sea Harrier)

11

I like where you’re going with the minimum payload idea. I was thinking along the lines of a reduced pylon cost for the weapons. Like 50 sp for a 500, 75 for a 3 pylon of 500s, and 100 for a pylon of 6. Otherwise planes like the F-4s, Tornados, F-111s and such will be prohibitively expensive. I don’t see a pylon of 6 on an F-4 being much more deadly as a single because of the weight incurred and the performance loss. Taking 6 bombs could be easier, but loitering to use all 6 in that pylon could prove quite deadly. So a smaller cost is warranted in my opinion.

1 Like
12

Yeah. It would be kinda unfair to essnetially punish some aircraft that are best suited for almost carpet bombing. I dont think in either the Tornado, Jaguar or F-111 I’d want to be spending an excessive amount of time coming in for multiple passes. Id come in low and fast and somewhat hope i hit something whilst dropping all bombs in 1 pass

13

Yea, it shares the same kinda of idea as the level bombers. The amount of skill/time required to set up a successful pass on anything other than a capture point is just prohibitively difficult, so I’m going to make bombers the cheapest to use other than the 5kg, 8000lb, and 12000lb bombs. It would be amazing if this could bring level bomber players back into Ground RB, because I see it as a huge part of the game just being neglected and underutilized.

14

Yeah, had probably add 4000lb bombs to that as well (and maybe 2000lb but not by as much) . But yeah. they are not the most accurate tool to use. you have to be quite accurate to get a kill with a 1000lb bomb from any safe height in a heavy bomber

15

Yea, the 4000lb bomb is an anomaly because of the Skyshark. I’m about to plug in some more of the numbers since I’m not really busy at work.

16

I can also let you get a peek at my spreadsheet that I’m putting together when I get home. I’m always open to ideas on how to balance them out, especially at higher tiers and helicopters since I’m not as well versed in those aircraft in Ground RB.

17

Also things like the Lancaster can carry 2 of them and im hoping for a bomber variant of the mosquitto at some point. That would carry 1 as well (that would actually be a semi low BR)

18

Meanwhile when you try to spawn a plane that relies on an AP belt.

image

Which is another questionable choice as for some planes the AP belt is their only way to get an AP round in their belts, whilst every single US plane with a .50 has AP in their belts with 30mm of pen for free.

1 Like
19

I think I actually want to see a total overhaul of the ammo belt system at somepoint. Maybe even custom belts. But I dont really have enough knowledge on that to be able to say much more than that. But it does just feel like a bit of an outdated system

1 Like
20

Yea, that is one thing I hope to end. The cost of planes thay rely on guns only, like the Me-262 A-1/U-4, is much too high. The A-1/U-4 has 1 AP round out of 3 with 32 total rounds. That is 11 rounds that have a possibility to deal meaningful damage, and that is just crazy to charge more SP than bombs, which are more effective and easier to use than most guns.

1 Like