CAS is a core component of the game, as much as you’d like to, you can’t remove it from the game. Even if it might be a good idea to at least try, I don’t see them adding a ground-only mode, as that could hinder the sale of premium helicopters and strike aircraft.
To the actual matter:
What kind of objectives? Well, I am sure you have played on maps like Great Canyon before. Have you ever noticed how these maps get semi-dynamic objectives? There also are maps that are limited to prop planes and in some cases, specific nations. Those usually have alternative win conditions, such as clearing areas of defensive ground units, destroying bridges, capturing airfields or destroying all bases and the enemy airfield afterwards.
All of that is missing in high tier Air RB. I’ve seen several people asking for a dedicated EC mode for Air RB like naval gets, or some better PvE modes like that for helis.
Even if people just end up using them as SL and RP pinatas, escortable AI bombers and surveillance aircraft or interceptable attacker squadrons with meaningful repercussions to letting them die or fulfill their objectives would be nice to have for people using niche fighters and interceptors. On the flip-side there could be ground targets with some actual functions to destroy for attackers and bombers. The front airfield would be such a target, but things like radar or jammer stations or some kind of logistics convoy would also work.
I know plenty people will just write off objectives as pointless, as they can just win matches by killing everyone, but that hasn’t always been the case. Bombing targets used to have a much bigger impact on tickets, especially on EC maps, as player kills don’t matter quite as much there in terms of tickets.
Okkkkk where do I start? The F-4M/K, are at 11.3. While yes, the aircraft itself is superior to the American Phantoms (Due to the Speys), it’s weaponry is not. The reason the F-4M/K have good stats, is because mainly good players play them, NOT because it’s a broken overpowered aircraft better than the F-16. Currently the F-4M/K at 11.3 means they fight aircraft from the 2000s, and without any all aspect IR missiles, it’s a death sentence, Skyflash can be dodged by rolling or flying to the ground, and the IR missiles are rear aspect and can be kinetically dodged. WE NEED AIM-9L. Put it up to 11.7. Japan has the EJ KAI at 11.7, so why can’t F-4M at least be at 11.7, if you just give F-4M AIM-9L, then there is a discernable difference between the two.
I hope they address better the situation with the British Phantoms, because they are one of the worst in terms of performance at those brs.
They lack agility and manouverability of the F4Es,
while retaining the same avionics of the naval F4s but without the 7F and hmd, making the brits F4s lacking compared to the others at 11.3, and sure, they have the best engines, but this charateristic Is only pared to the F4K and M and its not that helpfull when you are facing constantly 4th gen fighters.
They wouldn’t Need a br increase at 11.7 like the Kai, because the latter has both 7Fs and 9Ls with the F16a radar, while the brits remain with Skyflash and F4j radar.
Why is the proxy fuze bug still ongoing after a month of ruining top tier (mostly ground)? Community Bug Reporting System
Will it be fixed with this update?
It seems worse bugs appears every single update and lasts for months which is a sign that there is a lot technical debt. Is the dev team planning on a code revamp and/or improved quality control to prevent these issues in the future
This is a sad mistake which you are going to have to change. The F-111A was in service long after the AIM-9B was replaced by the AIM-9E. That and the preceeding plane (F-105D) which entered service almost 10 years before the F-111A being able to equip AIM-9E’s just illistrates the lack of planning going on. The AIM-9E has roughly the same performance as the AIM-9B but has a wider FOV for the seeker. It’s still easily out manuvered with its 10G overload. Please think hard and think fast. The patch drops in the AM.
Sure, I don’t care about tonks, tonks, tonks. Ships are a dead mode untill missiles and submarines so getting aviation right should be a priority for all players of the game just like the Russian players that adamently defended all the I-16s in the game and their miniscule changes between each model. Getting the weapons right is what makes the platform perform. You might not agree and that is your choise. Just respect other players desires.
Yeah nah, I really can’t agree with the F-111A needing anything better than AIM-9Bs at 10.3. Having the choice of the single best bombload or still great A2G capabilities at much higher speeds than the competition at that rank is a worthy trade-off for having weak A2A capabilities
And hugely spike up the sale of ground vehicles. So what’s your point exactly? The spike up in ground vehicles should be predictably BIGGER than the drop in airplane sales, too, for the simple reason that [people who enjoy tanks + people who enjoy planes] are together a larger audience than [people who enjoy planes].
So marketing to plane people with top priority TWICE in both air and ground mode just spreads out one market/audience over two modes. Whereas an air mode and a ground mode captures two markets and thus significantly more customers, each of whom has at least one mode where they are top dog and thus willing to invest in it as much as possible.
Those usually have alternative win conditions, such as clearing areas of defensive ground units, destroying bridges, capturing airfields or destroying all bases and the enemy airfield afterwards.
Never had a single map before with “destroy a bridge”. But that’s just the same as a “base” anyway, who cares? So are lines of tanks the same thing. Literally just re-labeling [generic thing on ground that need to go boom].
The only meaningfully different air mode I’ve seen is those weird (and not very fun at all) ones with a cap point in air where you land at the middle to capture it. Which I hate, so I guess sign me up for “LESS variety” if anything if it means not getting those missions.
escortable AI bombers and surveillance aircraft or interceptable attacker squadrons with meaningful repercussions to letting them die or fulfill their objectives would be nice to have for people using niche fighters and interceptors. On the flip-side there could be ground targets with some actual functions to destroy for attackers and bombers. The front airfield would be such a target, but things like radar or jammer stations or some kind of logistics convoy would also work.
About the ground-only mode, that’s literally just me speculating why that still doesn’t exist despite people asking for it for years now.
The bridges are a side-objective on certain low and mid tier maps, I am not sure which ones exactly have it, but Spain is one of them. The main objective for one team (killing the other team aside) is to stop the AI tank convoys from advancing past a certain point. Destroying the bridges slows that advancement down.
There are some maps with cities marked as capture zones, usually one team is supposed to destroy attacking planes and ground units, while the other side is tasked with destroying the city defenses. If those matches go on long enough you can actually watch the attacking ground units enter those cities and capture them. Those maps sometimes also have bridges that can be destroyed to slow down the attacks.
That mode with the captureable airfields has a version with advancing AI targets, I believe its one of the island maps. Those units can cap the airfields, but I do know arcade has some wacky version of that where the players have to land on them (also that weird “air superiority” mode exists, where there are in-air capture zones, those are dreadful).
I don’t understand what consideration would be needed for the Saraph to get spikes if they’re giving them to two other nations already… The Saraph should have been the first heli to be considered. Israel made them…
As the guy who wrote the report that’s been passed to devs on that, the evidence of Saraph carrying anything other than Spike NLOS is fairly thin. Rafael has a report that they fired Spike LR from an Apache too but there are no pictures nor am I aware of what the pylon for that even looks like.
ER appears to use the exact same systems as NLOS and mounts on the same pylons, and the Israeli Air Force does operate Spike ER. That’s about all the evidence I’ve been able to find on it.
I assume the consideration is also on a balance front, all other F&F Helis, the Tiger HAD Block II, the Tiger UHT, and the A129D, carry 8 AGMs + 4 Mistral/Stinger or rocket pods. Saraph, even if limited to 8 Spikes, would be able to combine that with 4 stingers and 8 hellfires, which is a very heavy payload for a helicopter.
Well the Mistral is marketed with a hit rate of 93%… But Gaijin said it only has one rudder so the company that developed the missile must be missing something and lying to everyone…
As usual get used to it like the rest of the world dev does not have access to official data of those missile and do whatever they want to balance their game (while vokhr shred everything from 8.6 km with no problem