Nuclear Escalation - Development update from BVV_d

Righto, so now that the second round of Nuclear Thunder/Escalation is about to conclude and I’ve gotten a hefty number of games on both sides and with numerous planes, here is my feedback on it, which I will preface with saying I had a blast once again.

The Good:

The mode is once again leaps and bounds more fun and engaging than all other air battles mode that have been available in WT over the years.

  • Strong AA feels like a valuable AI target that shapes the outcome of matches
  • The new “cooldown” system where a player who dies before landing cannot spawn the same aircraft at the same airfield for a few minutes feels VERY good. Does a great job making shooting down another player in a sector of the map valuable, as said player cannot come back right away, which gives you breathing room to do ground attack work in the area. Also very much appreciate the fact that if you land after a sortie, the penalty is removed on your next death, making it important to survive if you want to continue to apply pressure in a sector.
  • Nukes feel a lot harder to use with the removal of CCRP when employing them, but also feel a lot more impactful when a player manages to destroy an airfield with one, both in the ticket swing, and clearing up the enemy teams ability to fight effectively on that side of the map.
  • Wider battlefield (into the mountains foothills) feels good
  • Depots appear to get captured more? Could be a placebo, or could be from the higher volume of air to ground munitions and lower volume of tactical nukes being used, but the frontline definitely feels a bit more dynamic, which is nice.
  • Retaining asymmetric battles (REDFOR vs BLUFOR) is great. The mode would be much worse if it was mixed battles (which leads me into my first negative…)
The "Bad":

Some of these might be contentious, but these are the parts that disappointed me the most in this current iteration of Nuclear Thunder/Escalation:

  • Allowing off-nation aircrafts into the “wrong” team feels terrible (most notable of which was the Malaysian Su-30MKM flying for BLUFOR), as it allows for patching “problems” on either team, and as such reduces the asymmetry. Each team having their own identity and gameplan is good, and mixing airframes into either side hurts this.
  • REDFOR medium range air defense (both Buk-M3 and S-300) REALLY needs to tone it down with the lock tones. Feels like I’m developing tinnitus flying against the Buk-M3 and its 70km onboard seeker lock range or the S-300 and its SARH locks.
  • BLUFOR medium range air defense (SAMP/T) is an absolute joke. I’m sure SOME players died to it, but I never actually seen it happen. Even in the odd match where REDFOR didnt knock out all SAMP/T TADS within the first ~10min, REDFOR could comfortably fly at high altitude anywhere inside BLUFORs airspace and never get shot down by SAMP/T. As modelled, the SAMP/T are borderline worthless to have.
For example, this is the first volley of Aster-30's from this site in my latest match:


The missiles are already functionally out of energy (near M1.0) after less than 30km travelled, flying around 1/3 the speed of the Kh-31’s they’re attempting to intercept. The site can barely threaten aircrafts on the frontline, and the second line of SAMP/T are roughly 30km away from the first line, meaning that with the current modelling for the SAMP/T, the backline sites can’t even cover the frontline ones…

You can actually compare how absurd the difference in kinematic performance between the S-300’s and Aster 30’s are in this image:


As can be seen, the Aster 30s having travelled ~30km are subsonic, the S-300’s 5V55R having travelled ~30km are still flying at around M3.5!

  • Barring the Kh-31 variants, none of the ARMs are really any good at the moment. It is literally impossible to use them at long range effectively, as they WILL get intercepted due to being in too small numbers, flying too slow, and with too high an RCS. For some aircrafts its their only real option for fighting Tunguska’s and ItO’s, but they just truly feel terrible. Fire 2 HARMs at a 2s6 and there’s a decent chance it intercepts both while also shooting you down if you didn’t aggressively pull of the moment you fired them, and most HARM carrying jets can only carry 2 HARMs…
  • SHORAD systems still don’t have their radars active until they have fired a missile at something. This means they always have the first shot on you, also means that if you got ARMs off but died, they wont hit, since it’ll shut its radar down and be gone before they get there, AND means you cant even try to find them using the ESM function on some jets, so you often get jumpscared by a convoy SHORAD opening fire more often than not.
  • Playing REDFOR specifically is incredibly boring. SAMP/T’s are literal non-factors, Kh-31PD’s mean optimal gameplay is to load min fuel and 6x Kh-31PD at the start of the match and fire on every single medium range system (SAMP/T and SPYDER) until the enemy has no AA left beyond ItO’s, which will only take about ~10min to do if a few people are doing it. You then spend the other ~50min of the match flying up at 10km alt raining missiles down on BLUFOR players hugging the deck trying to take out your GBAD systems or even just taking off really. Much like in top tier ground battles, the REDFOR (and more specifically Russian) experience is just 5-10min of getting you to a point where the enemy cant really fight back properly, and then spending the rest of the match shooting fish in a barrel.
  • The new naval assets were an interesting addition, but as modelled do absolutely nothing. They have no impact on the match, and you get like, 3 score for taking a ship out, and the ships don’t even fight back.
  • Depots and their SHORAD still feel like they respawn too quickly (it honestly doesn’t make much sense that they respawn in the same location at all quite frankly.)
  • BLUFOR jets not getting built-in ESM despite multiple bug reports on the subject is frankly disgusting.
Now lets talk balance:

Note I didn’t put “balance” in either the “good” or “bad” sections earlier, and that’s because I think balance isn’t too far off from being in a “good” spot right now. Now obviously, REDFOR is currently favoured rather heavily, since their GBAD is actually dangerous, and their workhorse ARM (Kh-31 variants) are incredibly effective, which allows them to set the pace of the battle and take all important positional advantage within the first few minutes of the game, forcing BLUFOR to fight an uphill battle. BUT, and I only noticed this today, once BLUFOR manages to actually take out the REDFOR AA, the advantage shifts in their favour. Most BLUFOR jets tend to carry more ground attack munitions which lets them kill more targets per sortie, and the F-111F is a much better nuke carrier than the Su-24M or Tornado, which lets them more reliably get those big late game airfield nukes that can swing the game.

As it stands, it seems most matches I’ve played today for example have ended with either teams around/below 1000 tickets when the other team hit 0, so very close matches, which is great, but the REDFOR team consistently played with a 3 player disadvantage compared to BLUFOR, showing that even with ~20% less players, they were still putting up a very good fight and even winning, supporting the claim the current balance is skewed in their favour.

Regarding the decision to remove the Buk-M3 and to add the AGM-88G AARGM-ER, I’ve already mentioned this, but I think its a step in the wrong direction, and a lazy way to try to balance the mode.

Finally, for my recommendations on how to improve the top tier version of this mode in the future:

  • Fix the Aster 30’s kinematic performance. There are multiple bug reports on the subject already. If the reason you aren’t doing this is because it would “be too strong” in GFRB, just remove the Aster 30 from the player variant of the SAMP/T and add the Aster 15 instead. Its pretty obvious that’s more in the ballpark of all the other current top tier SAM’s and the way you’ve modelled the missile anyways.
  • Bring the Buk-M3 back but nerf its 70km lock range seeker down to something like 25km instead. There is no reason why the missile should have a 70km seeker when it has a max flight range of 70km and most of the other ARH seekers in-game have 16km range. This will remove the issue with the annoying constant RWR alerts from its seeker or the S-300 lock, making the game a lot more pleasant, and will likely reduce its effectiveness greatly.
  • Use a similar system to ground simulator battles and set specific airframes to specific teams instead of just dividing them by what tech tree they are in. No more Su-30MKM on the BLUFOR side, no more F-15/16/Eurofighter on the REDFOR side. Maybe give REDFOR Rafale and/or Gripen for the sake of providing them a few more options, but if you do, lock them to REDFOR.
  • Buff the ships AA substantially and have them actually DO something (land troops, shoot at depots, actually defend the coastline from aircrafts trying to fly along it into their rear)
  • Buff rewards for damaging and killing ships.
  • Don’t let depots respawn in the same spot. Attacking convoys should be able to “build” depots if they capture a depots spot and the depot is destroyed, but if a depot is destroyed, it should respawn further back to provide a more dynamic frontline!
  • Give BLUFOR jets their ESM as per bug reports. Its not fair, nor even realistic, that REDFOR is the only side with built in or even quite frankly functional ESM (HARM ESM is so bad its not worth using)
  • Reduce the RCS of smaller ARM’s like HARM/ALARM/LD-10/CM-102. There’s no reason they should be getting picked up by radar at the same range as the Kh-31 variants. Or better yet, revisit the RCS of munitions in general, as there are other major issues with munition RCS, namely the ability for aircraft radars and ARH missiles to consistently find an hit other AAM’s even at extreme ranges, leading to the current “iron dome meta” where players shoot each others missiles down until one player runs out.
  • Increase smaller ARM’s like HARM/ALARM/LD-10/CM-102’s track rate and max G loads. There’s no reason these missiles should be as bad as they are at closer ranges when closer ranges is basically the only time you can use them in-game.

Looking forwards to seeing your next iteration of this game mode, be it at this top tier BR, or any other BR you choose to test it in next. Its the most fun I’ve had in War Thunder in years, and there’s a ton of potential there!

Oh, and it goes without saying, but having this mode adapted to sim would be fantastic, and could help you really stress test the mode.

9 Likes

I think this should apply to all munitions rather than just ARMs. Currently they are detected on radar the same as aircraft making AA able to very easily intercept them (when they do bother to use their radar and not just sling off missiles freehand by just using SACLOS guidance.) Some munitions like JSOW are built as stealth weapons meant to be much harder to be picked up and intercepted by AA but currently they are detected with the same ease as something like a PGM-2000.

5 Likes

Yeah im a bit tired and was mostly just thinking of the stuff used in the event specifically. I’ll update it.

That is kind of already there, but very half-assed.

Example: my radar sees enemy aircraft perfectly fine and my amraams lock on them from 16km. Also the same exact radar sees incoming s300 missiles from at the very least 50+ km away, HOWEVER if you try to shoot them down you’ll immediately notice that amraams get a lock on them from only like 6-8km hot aspect.

Evidently something is going on there. Not sure if that behaviour persists for AI though.

Edit: that may or may not be simply a huge coincidence, but I noticed how my HARMs launched at s300 from longer ranges and high alt/speed only ever get intercepted:
A) by s300 itself
B) in very close proximity to the site, often within 10km

Note how it is the s300 intercepting them and not some shorad (which would explain short range). So that MAY indicate that s300 is able to get a solid lock on HARMs only when they get this close. Simply detecting them is another matter though.

Nuclear Escalation: Final Review and Map Utilization (HEAT Estimation)

Based on ~50+ missions of NE during limited event.

For purposes of illustration:

  • BLUE highlighted area = should be the most utilized portions of the map and the highest concentrations of direct contact.
  • RED highlighted area = ~>80% of the activity or contact. If proven to be accurate - this highlights the need for adjustment to the Asymmetrical Formula for balance.
  • YELLOW highlighted area = ~<15% of the remaining activity on this area.
  • GREEN highlighted area = ~<5% of the remaining activity on Anti-Naval Operations
  • Remaining areas =~1% utilization.

Summary

Much of the map is under utilized. Perhaps there are creative ways to compensate this by corridors, physical features (i.e. mountains/hills/terrain depressions) or perhaps providing high value targets outside of the heat areas illustrated to widen utilization and lessen the concentration of the “furball mentality”.

For other ideas - progressively greater rewards for targets in under-utilized portions of the map, or convoys, additional AI assets or advances to necessitate attention from the high density/highly utilized areas.

Huge fan of Asymmetry - however there is a way for the formula to balance out while still enjoying the uniqueness of non-symmetrical competitiveness to encourage equal participation. This can be monitored through AI kill statistics and where the heaviest concentration of activity is. IF it is on one side, there is likely some balance tweaks needed in the equation. (Outside of skill issues- LOL)

Finally the rewards - if not the biggest flaw - the rewards for this “limited” event were absolutely abysmal. Likely cost me millions of SL to participate and frankly - I feel that as a guinea pig test - it sure would be pleasant if DEVS felt compelled to refund all the NEGATIVE SL for those that participated in the event.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. (LOL)

temp1

1 Like

That should be doable by adding exceptions to interception priority list as fix against AI, followed by altering RCS of these bombs so they are actually less likely to be picked up by search radars manned by players.

AI manned SAMs “use” radar only for updating IOG on missiles via datalink. Otherwise all knowledge of where are players, missiles, their trajectories come from the server itself. In other words, SAMs play with complete wallhack, only thing limiting them is line of sight, specific engagement range for each type of SAM and priority interception list.

S300 missile operate akin to ARH or R24/R27 missiles - most of the time it flies with IOG+DL, only somewhat up close it actually starts tracking.

I’ve pieced together priority list from Gszabi datamine that should be relevant for most/all medium range SAMs

M192, M901, IRIS-T SLM (LS), 5P85SE, 9A310, SM-90, SV 15t (Land Ceptor) (Sky Sabre), ACTL SM 88.45 BAD (MLT) (SAMP/T) [ITA], Kerax 460 (MLT) (Mamba SAMP) [FRA]:
added new target priority list (I presume for when it’s used as an AI target):
,
priority 1000: [Kh-31PD specific, when flying at its optimal speed and altitude]
ordnance,
950 - 1150 m/s speed,
580 - 730 kg mass,
14.5 - 15.5 km altitude,
10 - 80 km away in the air,
,
priority 500: [self defense protocol against missile-like objects, almost all AGMs fall here]
ordnance,
250 - 1250 m/s speed,
180 - 750 kg mass,
5 - 20000 m altitude,
max 300 m away on the ground,
max 50 km away in the air,
,
priority 400: [self defense protocol against glide bombs and slowest missiles]
ordnance,
180 - 500 m/s speed,
80 - 1500 kg mass,
5 - 10000 m altitude,
max 200 m away on the ground,
max 20 km away in the air,
,
priority 200: [self defense protocol against massive bombs/missiles, applies mostly to Ru 1500kg bombs?]
ordnance,
270 - 1100 m/s speed,
1500 - 2100 kg mass,
4 - 30 km altitude,
max 1 km away on the ground,
max 50 km away in the air,
15 - 75 s ETA away,
,
priority 100: [finally player vehicle is being engaged here]
vehicle,
150+ m/s speed,
5 - 10000 m altitude,
max 1.5 km away on the ground,
3 - 25 km away in the air,
,
priority 75:
vehicle,
100+ m/s speed,
5 - 25 km altitude,
10 - 50 km away in the air,
,
priority 50:
ordnance,
270 - 1100 m/s speed,
1500 - 2100 kg mass,
8 - 30 km altitude,
1 - 20 km away on the ground,
max 60 km away in the air,
25 - 75 s ETA away,
,
priority 15:
vehicle
0 - 2000 m/s speed
20 - 25000 m altitude
0 - 20 km range
,
priority 10:
vehicle,
max 25 km altitude,
20 - 50 km range

The way I understand this, there’s sort of opening for glide bombs launched from high altitude, both small GBU-39/53 and big 2000lb ones, as these two types just dodge priority 500 weight criteria. Sure, these bombs are handled under priority 400, but only when below 10km alt. And both glide bombs enter near vertical dive during final approach. Will that put them in blindspot if there’s one or give them enough speed to zoom past self defense? Remains to be seen. Certainly 30km stabilization range becomes limiting factor for precise GPS target designation.

3 Likes

True, reducing munition RCS also make MCM less likely to be meta, air combat has been plagued by this for months…

2 Likes

Just for some feedback, I started playing War Thunder in 2012…2013??? It’s fuzzy at this point…but I’m not interested in playing in the Slightest until Escalation comes back!

Normal ARB and GRB are so boring and devoid of actual meaningful objectives…Hilariously small maps that Modern MBTs should NOT even be considered to be on in 10000000 years, with stand inside silly painted circle on the ground as objectives 🥱

Great New Mode for MBTs…a section of front line from Escalation…find and destroy the Enemy’s Armored Depot and SAM battery… 50x50km a match that lasts longer then 15min and where we can really let these MBTs Run!!!

6 Likes

until you get cased

Forgot to mention or include Ground Only Mode…as yes would be lame, on that big a map CAS would just kill you. But if you could bring AA at least you wouldn’t get spawn camped 2 min into the match by some light tank 😒 and you could set up these AA properly!

2 Likes

My point is that AI, depite being all-knowing, still needs a hard lock to launch an s300. Which it seems to be able to get against munitions at rather close ranges, as opposed to aircraft. Same logic as my ARH missile being able to lock other missiles at distances far lower than advertised 16km.

So reduced RCS of munitions seems to be there, but as I said, it is very half-assed.

2 Likes

Instead comparing apples to oranges (SARH vs ARH), do apples to apples, so SARH to SARH. And as you’ve said yourself, your own aircraft radar has no issues picking up munitions, while R27ER/AIM-7P will guide on those just fine via IOG+DL, eventually switching to track as they get closer.

I tried reading back through the comments, but after a hundred of them just talking about Anti Air I stopped. I think I would like to offer my opinion on this portion.
Adding user controlled ships would be an awesome way to improve Naval organically and bring in people who normally would not play the mode due to their BRs not being available. However unless you have player controlled CVs and Ships like the Charles F Adams or the USS Gettysburg(CG-64) to keep up with the era of airplanes, along with coastal points of interest like we have in Naval EC it is hard to see how that works.
Adding Helicopters is probably the highest priority and best idea I think, because currently Helicopters are pointless in the game. You can not effectively use them in Ground Battles or at least not in a way that is fun or rewarding and well Helicopter EC, PVE is not fun(maybe for a few it is). So getting them into a mode that is dangerous but yet rewarding like Nuclear Thunder would be great. It would also be game changing if utility helicopters could somehow provide supply runs to forward airfields if you go that route.
Now I could be daydreaming here, but If we are somehow thinking about using ground assets to do Airfield recovery or to capture objectives on the map to move a battleline forward like we do in IL-2 Dynamic battles, that could also be awesome and a good way to move all your player controlled assets under one game mode.

4 Likes

I understand that Gaijin at this stage is working on balancing the efficiency of “blue” side vs “red” side but the AARGM-ER is only applicable to specific platforms which is not available to all “blue” countries or planes. If I am not mistaken the AARGM-ER is also only available to specific platforms even within the US nation at top tier in the tech tree. There are many players that don’t care to play the US/Russia and also want to see something different for others as well and not just focusing on efficiencies of “blue” and “red”.

Since the AARGM-ER is confirmed to come next patch, here’s what should come:

  • Aircraft that have internal ESM should have this capability irrespective of mounting or having any ARMs mounted, this would help certain aircraft locate targets.

  • Aircraft that have the ability to have target point slaved to the ESM should receive this capability to be able to fire GNSS guided bombs to the emission location of targets without going through the arduous task of locating targets through the targeting pod.

  • Missiles like the Taurus and Storm-Shadow/SCALP should come to the game and be added to the Gripen E, Eurofighter, and Rafale. These missiles would allow a stand-off capability where it could target enemy SAMs when paired with the above measures.

  • Anti-ship missiles like the Marte-ER, RBS-15 and AM-39 Exocet should be added for the Eurofighter, Gripen and the Rafale.

Please focus on increasing the efficiencies of other nations or aircraft besides just focusing on the Kh-31PD for Russia and AARGM-ER for US. Other countries focused on other avenues and methods when intending to do SEAD/DEAD missions besides the traditional methods and this should be reflected in the game.

6 Likes

Or if they just want to be lazy in the case of Gripen, they could have given us RBS 15 mk4 and addressed both the lack of stand off ordnance and missing maritime strike capability.

Would be better if we got all the nice armaments, but even if they take the lazy way out, we have options for Sweden to reduce at least that part of the workload. Would not reduce all too much work, but would still be better than nothing if they’re going to have to rush things out the door.

1 Like

The mountains are also not defended though I would not put sams there some mobile 40 and 37mm AA plus 20 and 23mm AA mobile guns with some manpad teams would go a long way.

I would like to talk about game mechanics that could make the entire game mode more interesting that could also benefit a ton of different jets.

1st: ELINT

Short for Electronic Intelligence, this system allows for the location of enemy radar sites by measuring their emissions

this task is either performed by special ELINT aircraft or can be performed by equiping ELINT pods.

the ELINT system is really just a way more accurate RWR that can accurately measure directions of radar beams, record them and tie each measurement to a location of the ELINT jet. over time the recorded dataset allows then the triangulation of a enemy radar site. this is then done for every single radar of the enemy that gets recorded, the more data collected, the better!

r/Warthunder - basic graphic on how a ELINT aircraft finds the location of a radar|658xauto

basic graphic on how a ELINT aircraft finds the location of a radar

2nd: SAR

Synthetic Aperture Radars are really just normal aircraft radar system that take advantage of the movement of the aircraft to generate high resolution radar maps, advanced ones are high enough resolution to even see vehicles.
the only “issue” is that these images are not live, they are updated periodically.

this however would greatly help in locating enemy stationary assets like SAM sites, depots, etc…

r/Warthunder - example of a SAR image from the DCS F-15E, the bright spots on the taxiway are aircraft and vehicles.|640xauto

example of a SAR image from the DCS F-15E, the bright spots on the taxiway are aircraft and vehicles.

3rd: Jamming

Just give us Jamming pods and abilities to do support jamming of enemy radars to make strike missions easier
the april’s event showed that these systems actually worked pretty well on the B-52 and Tu-95

4th: Recon

My Biggest gripe about the event was that map markers that got detected would quickly disapear
so I would like to see a mechanic where you can do recon and keep the markers on the map
especially on static assets like SAM sites

you can update markers by doing more Recon or Bomb damage assesment missions to check if certain enemy units are still alive, or if they have moved.

a easy way to tell is by letting the player move the mouse over map icons and have a display on how long that icon ago was created
destroyed units icons are simply removed.

the base mechanics for that are also already in the game, simply port them over from ground forces and use Tpods

it also would make helicopters be really valuable assets

All these mechanics would impvrove teamplay and add some realism to the game for large scale operations.

17 Likes

Which is why they cannot be added as they were back then. In the event they were simply deflecting any and all radar missiles with no counterplay or blindspots or whatever else. Basically radar LDIRCM.

You could try balancing that with “it only works past X range” but then you’d get something like rafale being untargetable past 20km. Lots of “fun” to play against, so thats not gonna work either.

All very true

These things are also getting better by the day one issue being the amount of Data they produce is massive there also better then lidar systems as they remove organic content (heavily limit) like trees so hiding under a tree wont work but you also cannot see people or animals. Some Apeture radars have a ground penetrator feature but putting that on a fighter may be a bit pointless but you might find small air raid bunkers. Mixing lidar and radar can do wonders there is also space based Aperture radar systems now for ground mapping China has a network for the Pacific.

it could maybe be limited to dedicated SEAD platforms or ground attack planes and bombers.

dont give fighters the jamming pods.