Nuclear Escalation: a failed War Thunder interpretation of Nuclear Option and how to Improve it

Dev Server "Heavy Cavalry" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1

Let me start by saying I love War Thunder and Nuclear Option and have played both extensively. As such I understand what each game is going for, what makes each game work and is enjoyable to play. I can say for certain that War Thunder’s interpretation of Nuclear Option tells me the Devs don’t truly understand what makes Nuclear Option work. I would like to point out some major key issues that War Thunder’s version of Escalation does very badly and why it works so well in Nuclear Option.

  1. Air Defense
    This is in my mind, the most pressing issue with War Thunder’s Nuclear Escalation. In Nuclear Option the vast majority of enemy air defense is made up of kinetic SPAAG’s and Fox 2 SAM vehicles. You don’t even see enemy convoys with Fox 1 SAM vehicles until 30 minutes into a game. In fact they are so rare, the factories that produce the Bolt Strike (NO’s Tor M1 Fox 1 SAM vehicle) only produce ONE every 30 minutes. Until that 30 minute window passes, you will only have to contend with SPAAG’s and the Fox 2 SAMs. These are much more predictable and present a much better target for CAS players. Air defense is intended to be a shared responsibility with the players. YOU must supplement the air defense with A2A focused players, yet in War Thunder it feels like the player is the least of your worry. War Thunder seems extremely liberal with the usage of Fox 3 SAM systems which completely break the tempo of the match. Fox 3 SAMs in NO are restricted ONLY to the big bad destroyer which starts FAR in the back as to not break the match tempo. As of now it feels like you are on a timer the moment you take off in War Thunder. Once those Fox 3 SAMs start slinging, its only a matter of time before it gets you. In my opinion the Fox 3s should be only present on the furthest back final airfield as to protect the early game tempo of the match. Forward Airbases should be only protected by Fox 1/SACLOS and Fox 2 SAM systems as to push more of the air defense responsibility onto the player.

  2. CAS Kill Rewards
    The Dev behind Nuclear Option understands that to catch the mouse, you need to bait the trap. You need good ground target kill rewards to entice CAS players. If you entice CAS players, you entice Interceptor players to hunt CAS. If you entice Interceptor players you entice A2A players to protect the CAS and target interceptor players. If A2A players deal with Interceptor players you get more confident CAS players. The cycle repeats endlessly resulting in a fun and rewarding loop. Look, I understand you want people to suffer the grind Gaijin, I wish this was more of a game than a money printer but you do need to make compromises. Eliminating ground targets and buildings is EXTREMELY lucrative in Nuclear Option and yet you have to contend with extreme resistance from both AI/Player A2A and ground defense. Taking out ground targets should be bar none, the greatest source of score/points for Nuclear Escalation to have any real bait for the CAS players to bite on to. You need CAS to be the primary objective to prevent the horrible mothball situation of the April 1st event from returning. Even in the largest PVP matches of Nuclear Option there is always an excellent mix of CAS players, SEAD players and A2A players as well as support helicopter players conducting their duties. This needs to be captured for the long term success of Nuclear Escalation.

  3. Terrain/Map Design
    This one is also very important and something that goes unnoticed/unappreciated in Nuclear Option. The map Terrain is set up in a way to give you plenty of “cover” to duck into for both avoiding incoming Fox 1/2/3 missiles and hiding from radar. As it is currently, War Thunder’s Escalation map is primarily a flat, uninspired map with nearly 0 cover. No mountains, rolling hills or valleys to mask an approach or to duck into when being chased by a missile. I can’t even count how many amazing dogfights I’ve gotten into in Nuclear Option just by dipping in and out between the valleys and hills, jumping onto enemy fighters at close range. If War Thunder can even mirror a fraction of that design it would be an excellent improvement to the game.

These are the 3 key major points that I do believe need to be addressed to result in long term success for the game mode. With Nuclear Option I regularly get lost in 3-4 hour gaming sessions having an absolute blast. War Thunder’s Nuclear Escalation simply does not yet grasp that spark, however the potential is there. I could list off many more things, like the imbalance between the Blufor and Opfor CAS options (I am looking at you Mavericks and KH-38MTs) but those are issues outside of Nuclear Escalation.

I truly hope the Devs get to see this and understand my points as a long time War Thunder & Nuclear Option enjoyer. I understand War Thunder is a more “realistic” take on the genre but sometimes balance and gameplay enjoyment do have to take priority with modes like this. Im sure a solution can be found and I am hopeful for the future of the mode.

-Dasmoss

14 Likes
2

Very well explained, but I have a feeling Gaijin will just ignore it altogether :(

4 Likes
3

I can only hope they even take a peek. Even if point number 1 could be fixed, it would mean a lot for the longevity of the mode.

2 Likes
4

Nuclear Thunder isn’t some Gaijin knockoff of Nuclear Option. It’s a completely different mode in both design philosophy and tactical complexity. It’s obvious Nuclear Thunder is not meant to be a copy of a Nuclear Option-style mode, evidenced by its unique nature and exactly the things you mentioned.
To start off with, Nuclear Option is a non-realistic arcade game which can change any number of variables that exist freely to fit the game. War Thunder makes a credible attempt to maintain realism; it cannot, and additionally should not, do many of the things you mentioned.

That aside, I separately have thoughts on your suggestions.

  1. Air defense is the most important element of Nuclear Thunder. The network of defenses mirrors a realistic battlefield, in which each side operates an IADS complete with layers of defense. The strength of the air defense is a core part of the gameplay, and one of the reasons it is enjoyable to play. I agree that ARH SAMs are overused in the mode (as of the dev server), but the main idea of Nuclear Thunder (starting during the April Fool’s event cycle) is a realistic PvPvE environment in which the air defenses dictate the flow of the match. While the dev server NT air defense is overtuned, the first/previous iteration was close to an optimal strength of AA. SACLOS SAMs shouldn’t be rarely seen or irrelevant.
    On the other hand, if you weaken the air defenses so much so that they are useless, and force most players to play in an air defense role, well, congratulations, you have a purely air battle, Air RB. You can play that already; we don’t need another mode lost to the fighter mains, and something like what you suggest wouldn’t bring much new to the game.
  2. I agree that CAS rewards should be increased. However, it should be balanced with A2A rewards, and not overly/exclusively profitable, which would risk pushing to the other extreme of too many players doing CAS. Additionally, your belief that “enticing” CAS players will “entice” interceptor players does not make sense. The latter doesn’t follow from the former. Rewards should be balanced and equal; if CAS is significantly more profitable than A2A, you won’t get many A2A players, and vice versa.
  3. Map design should try to be realistic instead of arbitrarily/unrealistically modeled for convenience. Nuclear Thunder’s terrain isn’t flat; while it may appear that way to a newcomer, the truth is that there are constant terrain features, just not as obvious and easy to exploit as in Nuclear Option. There are also flanking routes on the sides with such cover. Nuclear Thunder simply presents more of a challenge than other games, valuing player skill and realism higher than convenient, easily exploited cover (the latter of which results in very predictable gameplay).

Your preference for Nuclear Option is just that: your personal opinion. Many people would disagree not only with your opinion that anti-air is too strong, but also with your belief that balance and gameplay enjoyment are necessarily in opposition with realism. In reality, a greater challenge (within reason) results in more varied, engaging, and fun gameplay.