Tbf since the s300 change i am winning a lot on the blue team and trying to stop hordes of 14.7 in the red team.
Definitely RN high altitude dominance is decided by planes vs planes instead of SEAD/DEAD.
I think it should be a balance of both and RN long range SAMs are not relevant enough.
It was kinda easy to destroy buk, people just didn’t try correctly.
It was still too much effort compared to just spamming kh31 from airfields.
A mixed SAM lineup of 5 s300 + 2buk vs 5 patriot + 2 SAMPT would have been perfect IMO
Noticed that too to the point my best sead aircraft is the av8b+
It would be good IF NE was a SQUADRON battle which it is not
even on 60% sens its all i hear, i have a rwr sound mod on so its even worse
Change to s300 is a joke. Now both long range AAs are nonissues, just sit in orbit and strike anyone bothering to use an attacker lol
Which anyone could have seen coming, but the intention is clearly not to make a good mode. Better to shaft everyone than bring blue’s AA in line with documentation and work from there.
The good news is that i grinded what i wanted so i’ll stop playing it.
And i decided not touch that mode ever again. I don’t trust GJ with what they do, with their balance etc.
Cool idea , but they can’t into gameplay at all.
Maybe if they try to make some simpler modes for starters and let the complex ones for when they’ll have the experience to get them through.
I could say “i can’t believe” the mode has the same flaws with April’s event, but it’s the same faults exactly with different names. And thr solution is the same kind of treatment they did back there. 2 days before the end they nerf the other side to seem like a fix.
It feels like there the airfields in the side-fronts are just not covered at all for the Reds currently.
So no it wasn’t a fix, it was something to give the illusion of the fix because Blues win, by just bombing those airfields.
And with the cooldown in spawns it ends like this.
That’s 3 planes in 10km from the airfield…
And i can bring more pictures with more planes , cba to go screenshot from replays though.
I mean , let the Blue side play , ok… if i am bothered i can go plays F-15s/16s/rafale etc.
But i don’t think that “balanced” and GJ can go ever in the same sentence, except for describing opposites. I just can’t trust them to do 1 thing well anymore…
Future nuke plane for blue side in nuclear event?
how long term are we talking ?
most likely next major or when nuclear escal goes fully live
You can clearly see from the topographic lines that there is a valley there which allows aircrafts to fly below the S-300 battery near Tidewater Point. Its an AA blindspot sure, it also means that literally any jets attacking said AA site is super predictable. Its not an oversight, its a map feature you’re intended to play around.
I can say wholeheartedly that REDFOR AA remains much stronger than BLUFORS, simply due to how anemic the SAMP/T is kinematically, coupled with how much stronger the REDFOR ESM and ARMs are. You should not be losing games as REDFOR, its literal easy mode right from the start.
Also, keep in mind, I dont think REDFOR AA should be nerfed (barring the Buk-M3’s magical 70km seeker) and im actually bummed out the Pantsir was removed from MRAD batteries. BLUFOR AA just isnt up to the task in the event and clearly needs to be fixed so as to pose a credible threat to REDFOR jets, and be properly capable of defending itself. Weaker REDFOR AA isnt the solution, stronger BLUFOR AA is, as I’ve said back when Smin announced the changes from Buk-M3 to S-300.
maybe F-15E with nukes, unless they bring back strategic bombers
Some more feedback
The S-300 air defense system is much easier to deal with than the Buk-M3, but the annoyance factor remains; the Red side’s air defenses are much more aggressive than the Blue side’s.
The S-300 fires at everything it spots, whereas the Blue side’s anti-air units play passively. Even though the game is now balanced in terms of capabilities, the annoyance factor remains because, when playing on the Blue team, your RWR starts beeping incessantly the moment you take off… from the airfield furthest back on the map, and keeps going throughout the entire match. I think the difference in how air defense systems behave needs some tweaking, either both sides should play passively or both should play aggressively.
Because the constant RWR beeping all match is really annoying; the Red side doesn’t have this problem.
Regarding the ITO anti-aircraft systems specifically, I also think their behavior needs adjustment; the radar shuts off too quickly after firing, and they fire while constantly moving. The radar shutdown delay should be much longer.
Another problem is the aircraft carriers.
The F-18F and F-18C MLU2 constantly break their landing gear when taking off from the Admiral Kuznetsov, making it impossible to land back on it. Landing F-18s on the Admiral Kuznetsov is also very complicated.
The J-15T still lacks catapult capability, which makes taking off from Blue-side aircraft carriers quite complicated… Sometimes it’s impossible if you spawn too close.
There should also be an indicator on the map showing which aircraft carriers have already sustained damage; spawning on a carrier only for your plane to clip through the deck, fall into the water, and count as a crash—causing you to lose that spawn—is a very recurring issue.
There should not only be an indication of which aircraft carrier has sustained damage, but the damage model for the aircraft carriers also needs to be fixed. Lack of ESM SCR in Rafale. The Rafale should have ESM SCR to locate radar emission sources, and when selecting an emission source, it should be marked with the CCIP (in the same way that TWS GMTI marks selected targets) to enable the launch of GNSS AASM. The Eurofighter and Gripen should have a similar SCR/ESM function for GNSS-guided weapons.
Nuclear Vectors
Another issue lies in the platforms used to launch tactical nukes—the Tornado, F-111, and Su-24M. They aren’t suitable platforms for use at the 13.3 BR level and above; they become severely outdated even when facing 13.0 aircraft.
Even if platforms like the JH-7A and Mirage 2000D-RMV (with no micas) were implemented, they would still be outdated platforms by 13,3 aircrafts.
Ideally, the F-15E would be implemented as a heavy nuclear delivery platform, and the F-16D as a light nuclear delivery platform, for allied nations of the us(japan and israel ).
Both feature the Fox-3 missile and IRCCM for self-protection .
For nations allied with Russia, the MiG-29N or M or SMT is used as a light nuclear vector, and the Su-30MKK/MK2 as a heavy nuclear vector.
Mainor nations may also have their own variations of nuclear delivery systems.
like a Mirage 2000N (an RMV version with 2x Magic II and 2x MICA missiles) acting as a light and heavy platform .
Germany with the F4I CE 4 (light and heavy nuclear vector ).
Italy and Brits with Tornado F3 late ( (light and heavy nuclear vector ).
China With JH-7A2 as a light platform and the Su-30MKK as a heavy platform.
Sweden could use the Gripen D as both a light and heavy platform, or simply align with Russia or the US—depending on which side it takes—and gain access to its allies’ platforms.
Delivery game finishers platforms (like the Tu-95M and B-52 were in the previous event) It could be the B-1 Lancer or the Tu-160M …As optional platforms for mainor nations H-6N (china), mirage IV (france), Avro Vulcan (Brits)
I can see F-15E with freefall nuke bombs being obsolete too once the game progresses and people have long range air to air missiles like Meteor, R-37M, AIM-174B, etc. etc. At that point the B-2 bomber is the logical choice.
there are some others like cruise missile equipped B-52 and B-1B, B-2 would be really cool as well
maybe one day we will even get B-21 with AGM-181
Wouldn’t the B-52 be rough to survive in with how big and non-stealthy it is? Atleast the lancer is fast and smaller, and probably much more maneuverable. And yeah those aircraft have nuclear cruise missiles that can terrain follow their way to the target.
you can go real low in it, and im assuming they will add the jamming back for strategic bombers
B-52 also can get the AGM-129 which is a very special weapon
Its likely not an AI thing. Most SAMP/T TADS are destroyed within the first 5-10min of the game, said batteries cant fire at all.
The few batteries that might still be alive tend to be the furthest ones back, and the SAMP/T’s kinematic range is atrocious compared to the S-300 and prior Buk-M3.
Batteries have a limited amount of missiles before they need to reload, and so they can’t be wasting shots willy nilly. The AI likely has all systems firing when a target reaches certain pK% parameters defined by gaijin. As such, longer kinematic range = “more aggressive” GBAD.
Theres also the matter of perception.
Buk-M3 RWR alerts were incessant because the missile seeker had 70km lock range and the seeker turns on at 40km from target, while the missile itself has a max range of 70km. This means that the moment the missile is fired at you, its likely locking you already, giving you that annoying lock alert.
S-300 has great range as well, but is notably a SARH missile in its current configuration, which means that to fire at you it HAS to lock you, once again giving you that lock tone. It also means that theres a good chance an S-300 that isnt locking you but is locking something between you and it (another player or munition for example) will give you a lock alert as well.
SAMP/T in-game has roughly half the kinematic range of Buk-M3/S-300, and is firing an ARH missile with only 16km lock range. This means you’re only going to get a lock alert if the missile gets within ~16km of you and is pointed very nearly directly at you.
So you end up with a situation where:
Go low in the B-52? At that point, just add the lancer cause that’s what they were made for, low altitude penetration.
And how does the AGM-129 differ from the other weapons available in the US arsenal?
currently the only truly stealthy nuclear armed cruise missile to ever go into service. would make up for B-52’s massive RCS.
why not both, they have their tradeoffs
