100% THIS!
I was actually having this discussion with another friend who I was playing Nuclear Thunder with last night. Both of us have played a fair bit of the BLUFOR side of the event, and I’ve played a good bit of the REDFOR side. The vast majority of both of our frustrations, as well as that of other experienced players in my friend circle/squadron who have played the event, is that it is the short-range air defense systems in the convoys especially, and the similar units around the depots (especially when they are close together). This is what makes playing the close air support and ground strike objectives so frustrating for both sides. The long-range systems require respect and, I think, are closer to being correctly balanced overall, but the short range systems produce an undue amount of frustration.
When you consider that things like the ItO and 2S6 aren’t really designed for moving convoy escort-type duties- having to be static IRL to fire missiles- and therefore sit between medium-range ‘theatre’ air defense systems like the S-300, Patriot, Buk, Hawk, SAMP/T etc. and more ‘tactical/battlefield’ SHORAD systems [like the LAV-AD, M163, Chaparral/Improved Chaparral Machbet, Bradley Linebacker, Shilka, Gepard/Gepard 1A2, Ozelot and so on], it is clear that the more realistic- and arguably more balanced and less frustrating solution- to this problem is to replace about half of the ItO/2S6 and equivalent units with gun/IR-missile-based units, especially in the moving convoys where these other units are far more appropriate. These units should provide a good balance of effectiveness while not being so annoying to deal with that it ruins people’s enjoyment of the game and prevents people from actually playing the objectives to the greatest extent. It would also be more practically and tactically correct, and deepen immersion- when pilots in the modern era are flying in a frontline CAS role, one of their biggest worries in that low-altitude environment is a MANPADs or equivalent missile system and gun-based AA; not something like an ItO. This is going to become even more true if/when helicopters are integrated into this mode, and I think this change should be made as soon as possible to gauge its effects.
Also worth considering is adjusting the aggressiveness and ‘accuracy’ of the AI crews for these units. As of right now, they demonstrate near-perfect situational awareness and target prioritization capability. Their ability to simultaneously threaten players, while also successfully intercepting an improbably high amount of ordnance directed at them, is pretty ludicrous, in my opinion. However, their targets are not other AI, but other very human players, most of whom are not military professionals/pilots/etc who- even if skilled- are imperfect and unable to be aware of everything all at once. Their needs to be an adjustment to the effectiveness of the AI for these units, even if only somewhat, to reflect the reality of imperfect human performance, especially in a very saturated and ‘high-risk’ simulated environment.
All that said, I’m loving Nuclear Thunder- or at least, the concept and dream of it- and even with our complaints and frustrations, I like where things are going, and could go! I want to emphasize, especially if anyone in the development team reads this, that this type of expansive mission environment is what I always wanted from War Thunder, especially at the higher battle ratings. Please, take all of this feedback in good faith and continue to improve this game mode! We’re all hoping it continues to improve and becomes a permanent fixture in the game, and we desperately want it- and other similar projects- to succeed! Don’t give up on Nuclear Thunder- we’re counting on you!
