New Tactical gamemode "TARB"

Suggestions Maps/Missions/Events
43

Flinging NPC squad mates like missiles would be interesting, though not really flushed out as a gamemode that is actually fun to play.
The NPC prop missiles prioritize targeting the enemy NPCs. So they double as remaining decoys.
They should be able to return to the host player, “Don’t lower your speed below XXX” “Don’t lower your altitude more than XXXm” “Keep tail-chasing the enemy” “Return” “Separate our flying direction by XX degrees to the left/right”. Being able to make orders with the radio equipment is cool.
Do aircraft with no radios have to make the complete order before launching? They won’t be able to communicate without radios logically speaking. But it does not translate well into the game, all of this would be a good one-day event or something like that. Not really the “fun” gamemode. Though I’m sure players won’t be able to absorb and learn all its gimmicks in a day. When it comes to flying with NPC fighters in a combat, it would be tedious.

What if it was of an one-time use? What if they kept chasing the enemy forever? Only accepting the order to “chase the target”. If the squad is comprised of 1 leader player with 2 NPC fighters, it would be really nice. With no way to retrieve the spendable ammo, it is much easier to manage the situation. Maybe the “don’t drop your speed” option is fine to remain as is.

The NPC separated from the host should be capable of being targeted. For them to function as decoys, the player has to be in near proximity to the NPC. If the NPC and player crossed the flight paths even for a slightest amount of time, the chaser should switch the target to the NPC.
Being able to retrieve the NPCs seems important. When the first target is defeated, the NPC should auto return. It’s better be impossible to control 2 NPCs at the same time, except for “separate our ways” option.

44

Me 163 should be in TARB, with no fuel limitation. The throttle should be restricted to 2 or 3 stage control. The fuel efficiency should be reduced at lower throttle settings if available for the type.

45

Where did the unique tracer colors go. German guns should use green tracers.

46

The airfield barrier should reduce the speed of the incoming enemy by 30% if the target is forced to stay away. As the enemy can force a head-on like it’s a wrestling match.

47

If the starting BR is 5.0, the max BR range in the match should be 5.0~6.5. The 1.5 gap is the limit.

48

I held back, but I think water consumption rate should be 5 times higher just like the fuel.

49

Me 163 should be able to depart from the frontline airfield specifically. And the explorable area should be restricted to the 10x10km square with the factory in it. No climb skipping obviously. One issue with this is that, from the very high altitude the bombers will be dropping bombs way before reaching the factory area. It’s because of the momentum of the bombs. If the factory area is close to the border, this is exacerbated. The way to solve this issue would be to not use the 10kmx10km area, instead, a custom oval shaped area could be used to allow exploration of Me163s.

The frontline airfield should be a bit more closer to the ground-attacking area.

The altitude in which the bomb can be dropped accurately should be lower than 1000m, instead of 1500m. The bomb should move sideways. I first thought of delaying the drop-timing in a random interval. But the basic side-way motion does it the best.

Ground-effect should be added by scanning collisions with range finders located in the wings. Aircraft with higher induced drag should be benefited from flying near the ground. It settles down the unfavorable behavior of landing aircraft with higher fuel amount, though it is not much of a problem. The current stall speed is not accurate for landing.

50

I think this gamemode is best served in 20x20 players format. 10 bomber players show up in a formation of 50 bombers so it ends up putting more stress for PCs. I think there should be a limit for the amount of players that could be playing bombers at the same time. Maybe the game can just limit the max player who can own the entire formation instead of not letting them fly a bomber. I think a 5-player limit is alright. I think we just need a custom LOD for different PC specs.

Flying 1000m above the current teleportation exit for bombers should penalize the player with coins. Flying 1000m above the said altitude should reduce the coin over time. This is because the player might try to climb only to get targeted less from enemies, this is against the flow of the game. So the bombers better fly horizontally level. 1 coin is worth 100SL, 5 seconds of flying should reduce the coin by 1. If the player has no coin to compensate for it, the SL should be reduced instead. If the player’s game client crashes, the AI that took the control of the vehicle should not consume the SL.

51

For preventing a visual lag, I think maximum allowed tracer composition should be added to each weapon. A belt only comprised of tracers should be inhibited. If not, a chance to hide tracers of non-big bore ammo should be there if the user is enabling the option. The chance could be of a fixed value. This can be fine tuned to utilize the “ratio of tracer rounds” in the belt, to change this chance of hiding the tracer.

52

Just because I have a beefy PC doesn’t mean I don’t care about performance issues. I think M2 in particular has 0 reason to have “tracer only” belt. Why not go for a “API-t, AP-I, API-t, AP-I” belt. It’d be more engaging.

53

Rwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

54

About the “specialty bonus” set for each vehicle’s intended playstyle. Yaks in particular should get slightly better bonus for every challenge.
Or else “Speeding : type ground” to enhance the “speeding” bonus only when flying below 3000m? All challenges are accessed by any vehicles, but this one can be specific for vehicles tuned for low alt operations.

“Tap fire” - Have accuracy higher than 60% in 10 seconds before defeating the opponent.

“Sniper” - Wait 0.8 seconds before firing the gun, hit the first shot. The enemy does not have to be defeated. This could be specific to a high caliber cannon.
I : 0.4km distance.
II : 0.5km distance.
III : 0.6km distance.
IIII : 0.7km distance.
The distance is “when” the gun is fired.

Heavy destroyer - Kill streak against bombers
Rank = number of kills, Rank IIIII is the cap. The rank IIIII reward is repeated past 5 kills.

Speeding - assigned to vehicles never meant to lose significant amount of speed during a combat.
P-51, F4U, P-47, Fw190, Yak, La, Mig-3, Late war spitfire, MB 157, MC205.

Boomerang - assigned to power-dense vehicles.
Me109, P-47, Ki-61, J2M, Yak.

Swapper - assigned to maneuverable vehicles
A6M, Spitfire, Ki-43, Fw 190, N1K, Yak, Hurricane

Dodger - typically assigned to high roll rate vehicles with high wing loading.
Fw190, La, Ki-100, Ki-44, Yak

Tap fire
Yak, MS406, Me 109F-1,

Sniper
P-63, P-39, Hurricane IV, Tempest, Yak-9T, Yak-9K, Ki-45.

Heavy destroyer - Almost all heavy fighters.
BF110, Mosquito, P-38? Ki-45, Mig-3, VB10.

Speeding : ground - planes for low alt
P-39, A-36, Ki-102 otsu(not really), Yak, Fw 190, La, F8F, low-alt tune spitfires.
/Speeding ground is only for the planes with the bonus multiplier.

Yeah these vehicles are the ones I play a lot, there are many vehicles to pick from. You just have to get the idea behind the choices.

55

French MAC1934 should freeze around -10 degree Celsius. Italian Breda 12.7mm HE rounds should fail to detonate around -12 degree by a chance. Instead of letting MAC1934 Jam after being briefly fired in the climate, it’s wise to inhibit them from being fired entirely. So that they can be used above the said temperature limit. Or else this could be set 5000m for MAC, and 6000m for the Breda fuse regardless of the map temperature.

Because it is a game, it can be cooked to exaggerate the symptoms. At 4500m, there should be 0% chance of failed detonation. It should be increased to the max chance of 70% at the altitude of 8000m. This is entirely made up. It’s because it’s funny.

56

Vehicles in this game seems to make the flatter visual effect above the 90% VNE threshold, for A6M2 this is 600 IAS in km.
A6M2’s aileron tabs are redesigned in the 129th A6M2, it improved the speed up to 532km/h because it made the flatter issue “better than before”. The roll rate graph shows a sudden drop in the roll rate around the speed regime.

Aileron effectiveness for A6M2 specifically, at least A6M2. It should be reduced based on the manual flatter speed override. The flatter should increase the drag for all aircraft. Better structural integrity = Better dive acceleration.

There should be 2 notions of drag, one should be added to the base fuselage drag. The second one should be added to the aircraft based on the AoA. There should be 0 lift AoA for wings, at that AoA, the drag should be the highest. If the AoA is , say, ±4. This type of wing drag increase should be made 0. Instead of adding the drag to the base profile, the drag should be added to the final values.

If the A6M2 is made “weaker” by limiting its high-speed controllability, just adjusting the BR works fine. So adjusting the vehicle performance based on the “logics” doesn’t mean the vehicle turns useless.

57

@Orangeblack_Box this thread has grown well beyond its original scope through your reply posts. What began as a single gamemode suggestion (“TARB”) now includes separate proposals for weapon jam mechanics, individual aircraft flight model changes, UI/reticle customization, gun belt composition, and more, added piecemeal over an extended period.

Per our suggestion guidelines, each thread should cover one self-contained idea. Please stop appending new, unrelated suggestions to this thread going forward.

* If something is a clarification or refinement of the original TARB concept, edit your original post directly.
* If it’s a separate idea (weapon mechanics, individual vehicle FM behavior, UI features, etc.), open a new suggestion thread for it and only make a brief mention of it in a reply.

Note also that suggestions targeting individual, system-calculated parameters (specific gun jam rates, specific aircraft speed/drag figures, etc.) aren’t eligible as standalone suggestions per our Matchmaking/Economy rules, those belong in the relevant feedback threads Machinery of War Discussion and bug reports (bug-report).

If this continues, further off-topic replies may be removed and this thread may be reviewed for closure. Thanks for understanding.

2 Likes
58

That really did escalate fast.

I wasn’t really on board with the airfield forced protection, but I really like the Flak towers. The method you’ve used to represent those assets is really awesome too.

That could go a long way in map and mission design to be able to lay out a large map with units like what the old WW2 plotters had. It could lead to a good method to plan missions with wider coordination.

I really am wondering, what did you use to make and set those up… It’s such a cool look as it is.

59

I understood. I abused this thread to ramble about different concepts never meant to be specific for this game mode. Though I had my hopes of having them specifically to this game mode instead of pushing these to the current RB, partially because not many people like sluggish and tedious controls. The concepts I want in the game is really the first post I made. Everything else is supposed to be interesting, but I see it’s not suited to continue adding more vague concepts in this post about a new gamemode. Most of them, especially the yapping about Homare21 model ko and aileron flatter had nothing to do with the first post. It made the thread hard to read for someone trying to see what this thread is about. My apologies. I promise there would be no further off-topic posts in this thread. I might add something, next time it should be for the “TARB”.

60

The amount of fuel removed from the stock pile should be divided by the number of engines. Twin’s cost is fair this way. Even then, bombers should be provided with free fuel.