Have you considered also changing engagement ranges based upon altitude, something like:
Below 150ft = 50% reduced engagement range
Below 300ft = 25% reduced engagement range
Or something to that effect to simulate flying below the radar?
Also, reaction times need to be better modeled. Just give the SPAA at least a 3 to 5 second delay between detection/entering range and engaging an aircraft.
Will make the game feel a lot less frustrating as it gives you a chance to react before being shot at
For SACLOS SAMs they need some induced accuracy errors
my only request is PLEASE NERF THE SHORAD SPAA AI, they should have no business counter every single munitions super accurately, as in completely wiping out smart bombs/AGMs in 1 or 2 shots. This has been conundrum since the first Nuclear Escalation that some people only able to wipe them out by gaining 1kt nuclear bombs. And this gamemode is also more or less trickled down to Heli PvE with currently every SPAA in that gamemode also wiped out ATGMs even in Rank 5 only bracket.
again, nerf the SHORAD SPAA, you can see this happening on Heli PvE right now
also heli was a laughable in use when SEAD test event made a year ago, those TOW won’t even able to kill anything. They’re either a cannon fodder to player jets, or the ground SPAA itself.
I especially appreciate this aspect of the set up.
To me the asymmetric team comps, at least at BRs where trees have unique feels and offerings, is a great added layer of depth to the strategy and game play variety of matches, even when the actual mission type doesn’t change much, so I’m excited to see the team explicitly lean into that aspect, even if it means tackling extra levels of fine tuning when it comes to stuff like the AI controlled SPAA.
I for one would love to see 1960s and 1970s Nuclear Thunder first of all the potential development options. I think that could be a great opportunity to introduce earlier models of the B-52 and Tu-95, as well. As someone who loves all eras of air combat I strongly dislike the fact that this only spans 13.0 to 14.7; That’s great, but there should be more options.
This feels like a dream come true. For the first point, it’d be awesome to see escalation on a map with more interesting terrain, like mountain ranges. The ability to terrain mask against both enemy aircraft and SAMs would add a very fun dynamic, especially if air defences were placed in several strategic locations throughout the terrain. It’d also be nice to see the front line be more scattered and less linear, since currently it’s essentially just a straight line in a big field of short hills.
I much preferred the lower tier in the April fools event, so I’m very happy to see Gaijin show interest in developing the mode for earlier eras. I think this’ll be more accessible to most players than higher tiers, and easier to grind out new trees to play on different sides. It’ll be cool to see lots of legacy jets we’ve got that don’t perform well in Air RB get a new lease on life in a more complicated gamemode than air RB’s simple elimination format.
Combined arms sounds very interesting. If balanced well for both early and late helicopters, this could be a fun and engaging alternative to heli PvE which has been in dire straits for a while now, and it could also be a nice avenue to get people into naval warfare.
Please Please Please. I honestly didn’t expect ships, but helicopters were my first thought upon seeing the new mode. I would be absolutely ecstatic to play both in Escalation. Does this also suggest that some newer ships are in the works? Currently only Bravy and USS Charles F. Adams would really make sense. Also Exocet for Etendard and Albatros when? :>
But at the very least - include the helicopters. It costs nothing to sprinkle in some helipads(could have one available at each factory and ammo depot, for instance)
On the lines of these, a 60s/70s game mode would bring planes like the Harrier GR.1 into the forefront, given their IRL basis of using hides and being developed for when the airfields go down, will they be able to use the heli spawns, or even have their own “hidden” to the enemy hides from which to spawn/resupply away from the airfields?
Whoever you are testing this with are utter morons. You have failed to account for the fact search radars are not active, so no matter how you change it, pact forces will still be forced to loose 31s into the long range AA. Even making them fictionally efficacious will not stop the dozens of 31s launched from many platforms not eradicate the long range AA that oppose it.
You plan to change things for the sake of changing it, yet it will not change the current imbalance.
Do not add this delay. It will make low alt strikes horrendous, because search radars are still not constantly active. You will end up within the kill range of these platforms only to have the munition loosed, radar pop up only as the missile is loosed, and you will be struck before you have any hope of accounting for this information. This fault is the critical cause of so many of the current problems with the iteration.
Were search radars constantly active, you may have a case. But this would be the monkey’s paw. We are not provided any information on these systems until they loose the weapon, this would just further our progression into a no escape zone.
My thinking is more like a delay between radar detection and firing, rather than delaying being detected by radar.
Maybe also a delay between detection and lock too.
Quite frankly, search radars shouldnt be switched on and off like they are currently. Im of the opinion that if their radars are off, they shouldnt even be able to engage you if you are below like 1000ft. No matter the range, but they should switch on at at least 20-25% greater distance than their engagement range (i.e, 12-12.5km if the engagement range is 10km)
So, at the moment, you enter within range (lets say 10km). There is no RWR pings as you near. You are then instantly locked and fire at. Doesn’t matter if there was, or maybe still even a bit of terrain between you and the SPAA, you are locked and engaged the milisecond you enter within 10km.
What if instead, the search radar has to “locate” you first, so you get SRC pings for at least 2-3 seconds before lock, and then there is a 2-3 second delay between lock and fire.
So in-effect, you are adding a 6+ second delay between detection and engagement.
That gives you plenty of time to change course away from the SPAA, deploy countermeasures, etc. Also gives you a chance to fire at that radar contact before it starts shooting. It also means you could execute a loft attack with bombs without instantly dying.
Good to hear that economy is getting adjustments, cause this one was one hell of an overcorrection.
Free vehicles should be brought back at least as long as this is an event-type game mode.
Perhaps reduce cloud cover so high-angle GBU attacks can be possible against stationary SPAA targets. (not every nation has fast KH missiles)
Do consider allowing in lower br jets if they are owned by the player, because not every nation has ASM and ARM at the allowed br range. (like Germany with its Tornado MFG and SLE)
And please fix the ordnance-related bugs before releasing these modes, because it’s not fun to see an ASM do circles, or GBUs fall through targets and not even give a “hit”.
You’re right in how you want it implemented. I understood that part. The problem is the current iteration cannot survive your suggestion until we have guarantees that search radars will be active, and a necessary component of the acquisition process.
And this, with the delay, assuming no other changes made prior, enforces you being further into the NEZ before you receive that warning.
Except in the case that matters, you still can’t. It’s still pinging you within the minimum range of pact munitions. Which still facilitates the primary balancing deficiency of long range AA being eaten by pact as it’s the only viable target. The search radars need to be constantly active, or trigger out to 20km, especially with the closure rate platforms we are using are capable of.
If that’s not the behaviour we see, then we’ll still be forced into the current issues we’re seeing. Pact will eat all the long range AA because short range AA are nonviable targets, and we’re back where we started being rained down 77-1s from above instead of worrying about SAMs popping up from below.
Personally I would love to see the mode itself fleshed out more before it comes to new locations.
I really have to say that I do not understand how this happens time and time and time again over the years. Surely everyone on the team knows that all of these new features are added capability, not a degradation of.
Yet we never see balancing actions (like SP cost or BR adjustment) at the same time. It only ever happens months later. Why? I wish you guys were more proactive about this stuff.
