That’s just sea, bigger Dover Straits, anywhere in the andreactic sea, any part of the Aegean would be better
1 Like
That’s still the point. If they add another 256×256 thats also just 60× land it’ll play exactly the same. Only difference would likely just be terrain variation.
A sea dominated map would play very differently
Especially with the newer carriers and destroyers in the works
I think that’s too much sea honestly, there is barely any room for ground targets like depots, industrial buildings and radar sites
I see the vision, when we get actually modern ships in the TT it would be en excellent map, untill them we have the Dover Straits
Even with modern ships, something like Dover Straits would be a much better choice
Large SAM sites ans AshM sites on the shores more modern ships and destroyers. Amphibious landing ships, resupply ships small/light attack crafts etc.
I really hope every new map of NE won’t boil down to the samething of sling ARM’S att long range sites destroy land convoys and depos and spamm nukes att airfields
1 Like
You can do that with maps that have more land as well, no need to go for 80% sea
That’s how it will always work, it’s either ARMs, AShMs or cruise missiles. The amount of water on the map won’t change that.
The only thing that could (and should) change is the available of nukes.
If you want NE with less long range missile spam, you gotta play the lower BRs.
It would quite literally change how it plays. If you swap 80% of the targets to naval assets. Since you know its quite different fighting modern ships with AA capabilities compared to ITO’s
I want the opposite i want more and longer range missiles.
Anyways we’re quite off topic some mods gonna get cranky in a bit
The only thing that changes is the type of weapon used, if even that.
So you want more missiles spam?
Is this not discussing the future possibilities of NE, which we know they are working on?
Love that concept
Plenty of room left for expansion as well
1 Like
Indeed. I love me my missiles. I want more and faster and longer range. Same for AA SAMPT and S-300 are far to easy to defeat while att 14k alt going m1.6+
I feel like we won’t really get any larger differences than that. Which id like to see anyways. I want more naval focus I think it’d be a welcome variation.
I guess?
I feel like those will just make the game less interesting.
Like, honestly, do you think having even longer ranged missiles would somehow improve the gameplay?
You would get a larger difference by including more branches of military and adding more dynamic features. Having a healthy balance of water and land makes that easier.
We’ll have to see, if Gaijin will actually make NE more dynamic or not, but as it stands, the current map or a new one with a similar land to sea ratio would be far better than one that is mostly water.
When you just spam long range missiles, the only difference between a naval target and a ground target is the shape of said target.
More sea, except Naval ships with air defence missiles are SACLOS
Yeah. I genuinely do believe it would make the game more enjoyable FOR ME everyone might not agree. But I like BVR and dodging missiles going cold instead of just MCM and nothing close range. And SAMPT and S-300 are just jokes. You can defeat both by just flying perpendicular att altitude so id love longer rangvoption there aswell to make them an actual threat.
Having large strategic bombers such as the H-6K lobbing ALBM’s would be awesome even just as NPC’s for example with a objective to defend them on strike missions.
In what way i don’t quite understand what you mean by this.
I genuinely dont see a point in adding another map unless it drastically changes the dynamic of the match and its objectives
That only applies to A2A missiles. I am more interested in why people think longer ranged and more modern A2G missiles would make the game more interesting.
Anti air will never be a threat, unless you limit the engagement range of the planes, which means giving them less modern weapons.
This for example
But also other kinds of targets that have an effect on the match depending on whether they are destroyed or not. Letting those objectives be destroyed could have repercussions for the team that lost them.
Radar sites and AWACS could have effects on the marker distance.
Industrial complexes could have effect on the frequency and power of convoy spawns or anti air respawns.
Ammo depots could have effects on reload rates of allied AI units.
Missile launch sites could cause a gradual ticket drain unless destroyed.
And obviously, letting a strategic bomber or a group of attack planes through would cause massive losses and maybe even airfield destructions.
If a map doesn’t have enough land area you can’t spread out ground targets enough and the amount of airfields has to be very limited.
If you have a healthy mix of land and sea, you can have both a good amount of naval targets and the possibility for naval convoys, while also leaving room for ground based objectives.
The map size will have some level of effect, but without the addition of new objectives, the map won’t really change the gameplay.
Thinking of it, people will probably dislike a map that is mostly water. There’s no cover to make use of, no terrain to follow, if you want to multipath you literally only have to fly in a straight line.
This is Exactly how I feel as a Modern Jet main about WW2 props…Slow! NE is the Perfect Mode for all the Crazy Missiles, all it needs now is 300km+ maps, AWACS, mid air refueling ECM/EW 🫡
1 Like
Look, to each their own, but I really don’t understand what fun there is to be had when all you do is take off, launch a couple of missiles and land again.
BVR, I kinda get it, even though I think it’s extremely boring, but cruise missile spam and other long ranged weapons to use against NPCs while sitting in the safety of your teams airspace, I just don’t get the appeal
1 Like
Can I get a response on this from even a tech mod if possible? Just wondering why this still hasn’t been addressed