If notching is the standard and this is a realistic feature, then why does every single player fly on the deck and why are the engagements usually close range dogfights where in reality its the direct opposite?
I’m not saying the way it’s implemented is completely realistic, I’m just saying it’s real. You suggested completely removing multipath.
I pretty much only play maps with terrain, Spain, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Engagements here sometimes end up close, but not because people multipath, but rather because ARH’s effective range is basically nothing against experienced players. It takes about 4 seconds to enter a notch in a standard top-tier, 4 seconds from launch a missile like R77 will only have covered like 2 kilometres distance.
In reality extremely sophisticated IR missiles exist, where flares will do you no good, dogfights aren’t really a thing anymore. SAM systems aren’t all radar-based and may not be affected by multipath. I also don’t see why a fighter pilot would risk losing a $50 million dollar jet purposefully letting a missile hit right beneath them, whilst also flying dangerously low straight into enemy territory
Yes, in reality, pilots don’t constantly fly against the ground and air combat is almost purely bvr.
In war thunder sim, BVR duels rarely happen as opposed to dogfights and fox2 kills, and all pilots cut grass while being 100% immune to radar missiles. war thunder “sim” is the direct opposite of reality, there should at least me some effort given to make the combat dynamic more realistic and varied as opposed to the same arcadey bs that we see in air AB and RB. Its just air rb in first person, lol. Although I guess its still an improvement over the joke that is 16v16 air rb.
“letting a missile hit right beneath them,”
As far as im aware, in war thunder, planes don’t take damage when a missile explodes under them. I don’t think I’ve ever had that happen. If it does, it doesn’t happen anywhere near enough.
I can recommend you join some Afghanistan, Rocky Canyon or Spain missions. You get plenty of ARH action there. I personally always find at least some of those maps available, but I’ve heard others don’t have the same luck.
I agree. Although I don’t necessarily ‘need’ everything to be realistic just for the sake of realism. I do think most of the community appreciate realism though, we want it to feel like we’re flying the actual fighter-jets we know and love IRL. Otherwise what’s the point? We’d essentially just be flying made up planes with “skins” of their realistic counterparts.
When I made the thread asking for multipath to be reduced it was mainly coming from a balance stand-point, not realism. IMO multipath was way too excessive and led to bad, ridiculous and unbalanced gameplay. The goal was for it to be reduced so that it would become less consistent over uneven/unpredictable terrain, and promote other tactics, not for it to be removed completely. I think the reduction to 60m more or less achieved this goal. It’s not perfect but can’t really expect them to completely nail it.
It happens in certain circumstances, like if the missile has a lot of explosives like the Phoenix
Yeah maps are very important if you want to actually do bvr. Avoid Denmark at all cost, best options are spain, afghan, vietnam and canyon. If only gaijin added some more…Another map that got better now is Sinai, adding rocks makes it harder to multipath. However, I also would like to see multipath sensibly reduced, sometimes it sill feels “too much”.
3 Likes
Cant say I agree, even playing on the maps you mentioned, everyone flies on the deck and the combat is almost always close in dogfighting. Reducing the mp to 60 meters just forced people lower, the tactics are still the exact same, it just means more people I launch missiles at crash into the ground and deny me the kill. What a great system. The complete opposite to real world air combat, meaning planes that rely on their avionics and missiles like the tornado get smacked around because just like with air ab and rb, agile fighters with hmd and good heatseekers are the meta.
Maybe I set my expectations too high, but to me this isnt really much better than air rb. Gonna give DCS an install tonight as I remember that game actually plays out somewhat realistically.
None of the best players I’ve met on maps like Spain have relied on multipath. It’ll sometimes happen if they just so happen to fly over a very flat portion occasionally but current meta is all about the notch now, or ‘vertical notch’ as they call it.
When you can evade and survive a swarm of ARH missiles nearly point-blank doing this, there’s no such thing as being “forced lower”. They’re just choosing to attempt multipathing over a better technique, and as you say yourself, they fail to do so - because the reduction did indeed achieve the goal of making it less consistent.
Flying low still has advantages, like being in thicker air, better manoeuvrability, better situational awareness as you don’t have to worry about people sneaking up below you, easier to spot people with radar. I’m not sure what maps you’re referring to… on Spain and Afghan I’ve hardly gotten any dogfighting action
1 Like
Then we must be playing different games, I just dont see anything other than 95% of planes on the deck.
I get that notching is effective, I do it myself, and i never see anyone at my altitude (anything above 5k feet)
I have all the servers selected so maybe I’ve just been extremely unlucky?
If you are firing from that alt down onto someone just MPing, then it won’t provide much defence.
Been doing that this morning, lanching at like 20km, from 30-40k feet lofting as much as i can.
Barely makes a difference.
If the target is MPing, then I wouldnt loft it whilst launching from that high, if anything Id point my nose down slightly, that way the missile isnt wasting energy getting onto target.
Id only loft it if I was low, below about 5000 ft and firing down onto someone
Id also try waiting a little longer, if you arent getting attacked in return from a target that low, wait until your target is well within the LSZ (the box on your radar) before firing. Means they can kinematically defeat the missile.
Also, if you can, support the shot all the way to the target. There was some change a while ago or something where if the target is in ground clutter then the DL is still active or something. I really dont know how it works, but If you can maintain track on the target, it tends to work better.
Also means you can following up with an IR missile or another ARH if they defend.
Will try not lofting as much, probably gonna just stick to air rb tho since it plays out just the same, maps are still too small, games are still too crowded, mostly just close quarter dogfights. Its fun at lower BR’s though when using a VR headset.
I’ll have to accept that this game isnt going to offer proper air combat simulation like DCS.
Yeah… Though WT has always been a middle ground, a user friendly game that doesnt require a 10 page manual just to turn the engines on. So you’ll never get quite that level of simulation, but I also dont think its too far off
As for the quality of SB (maps, map sizes and PvE components) Unfortunately SB has been abandoned, the best guess is that they are working on Ace of Thunder and not touching Air sim because htey want people to go over to that instead
Notching or going cold doesn’t require a 10 page manual.
“It’s just a game” is quite a stupid argument, which usually defends ignorance, laziness or fear of the unknown.
“It’s a game, it has to be balanced” is a better argument, but still flawed. A game isn’t all about balance, the same way life isn’t all about money. What’s the point of sacrificing realism for balance, if you lose the experience you were looking for in the process, and you still don’t have the balance you wanted btw.
1 Like
Dont get me wrong, I want MP removed as well, but I still dont ever see a true DCS level of Sim coming to ASB is more my point
We don’t need full fidelity cockpits where you can click every button to have realistic gameplay and immersion.
We need things like bigger maps, SAM sites, AWACS (controlled by AI) and no multipathing.
Something as simple as making the AI units match the side you’re playing on is already an improvement.
Btw AI units in sim are the greatest sign Gaijin doesn’t give a damn about sim. Making it so the red side has t90s and il28s as recon planes, and the blue side has Abrams tanks and Sabres, not the other way around like it is now, probably requires 1 variable to be changed. One variable, a single line of code. And they still won’t do it.
1 Like
Yeah… Shooting down F-86 sabres in the Typhoon is wierd
But yeah, I want a PvPvE overhaul and have done so for a while.
Might be time for Mk3
I forgot to mention that if we implement those things, it will help with the balance as well.
A lot of planes are hard to balance, without the full context of aerial warfare. Some planes simply don’t have a purpose in a team deathmatch.
If we bring all aspects of aerial warfare into the game, we don’t need unhistorical matchups and artificial buffs and nerfs to missiles and flight models anymore.
That also includes battle economy (not SL). Some planes, although pretty bad, would have a great price to performance ratio. Harriers are known for their low operational cost, but you can’t really feel it in WT, can you.
1 Like
I agree. Removing multipathing entirely in sim wouldn’t cause lots of issues like it would in RB too.
Don’t forget about the mach capable Harriers and Cl.13s.
How would that be implemented without making it spawn costs 2.0?
1 Like
Each plane could cause a different amount of ticket loss when destroyed.
That’s just a quick example I came up with in 10 seconds.
1 Like