Tpod range especially is a really good shout. We have weapons that can be used at greater ranges, but you just cant. Not really at least
2 Likes
Maybe next time there’s a round of questions we can ask about Tpod range and when we’ll see Taurus and Storm-Shadow/SCALP
2 Likes
Have you considered that if balancing the economy is proving so difficult, perhaps it would be better to move away from individual rewards for every single action and instead introduce a fixed team-wide reward based on the battle’s outcome? You could include multipliers based on the total number of targets destroyed during the match, but—as I mentioned earlier—without tying the reward to specific actions performed by individual players.
Ofc. win should yield a higher payout, and this final reward would also be multiply by % of premium bonuses for players who have them.
That way, you wouldn’t end up with 2 “farmers” and 14 “bums” in a team; everyone would get something.
You’ve seemingly already figured out how to detect AFK players based on activity, so that shouldn’t be an issue either.
2 Likes
Will further development on AShM terminal attack profiles be done? (Example: AGM-84 Harpoon performs a top attack maneuver in the final phase of engagement by quickly climbing and diving with high Gs, I believe this is also true for a number of European weapons of similar size and layout)
Furthermore, will warheads for missiles used in naval attack be updated to better reflect their roles? (AS-20 and AS-30 are using SAP-HE warhead rather than pure HE)
Also i should say that if you planning add BR bracket for vehicles below 13.0 - just bring April AA’s placement to it (Patriot/S-300, BUK-M1/Hawk, Roland/OSA) Just cuz those jets under 13.0 cant handle top-tier AI AAs.
so now its much harder to destroy aaa can you increase the reward for destroying it in air sim ?
1 Like
ill be mad if we dont
1 Like
@BVV_d @Smin1080p_WT Is there any plans in bringing more strategic bombers as either event vehicles or tech tree vehicles with either the next or future nuclear escalation Event such as the American B-1 Lancer or The Tuplov-160 or other Nations strategic bombers
6 Likes
You should really consider raising the rewards, at least for the test phase.
It would encourage people to actually play the mode.
2 Likes
i want those too, but lets add the in betweens first or at the same time
1 Like
Any chance the mode is planned to come to air simulator battles, either during a test, or when it comes as a permanent mode?
I know quite a few players of the simulator battles community haelve been begging for this mode to be tested for sim :)
9 Likes
Might I suggest adding the AGM-88E or G variant to close the gap of ARM capabilities between blue and red team?
1 Like
Will players be able to play nuclear escalation without an aircraft from that br? (like the april fools version)
1 Like
I think they have already said that AARGM is being added next major update to resolve exactly that. I think it was said in the last one of these NE posts.
Economy changes aside, which as always leaves a sour mood for the players due to greed, one way to make AA behaves more realistically while improving balance is integrating PK calculation for the AI AA.
In real life, if a PATRIOT controller sees an enemy flying at 75 KM and low altitude or flanking, it won’t fire at them right away. This is because it’s just a waste of missile. By the time the missile is somewhat close to the enemy, it won’t even have the energy to connect.
This is the same reason why, even though ADATS have a max range of 10 KM, I don’t launch at that range if the enemy is going perpendicular. It just won’t connect.
AI AA reload time needs to be increased significantly. 30 secs won’t cut it when they have a second unit with 6 or more missiles and can reload the first one. We can also incorporate logistic truck. Meaning, reload can only happen if a convoy of logi truck reaches the AA emplacement, and then the truck must go back to Ammo Depot to then drive back to resupply again.
2 Likes
when will y’all add split throttle axes?
Been wondering how they plan to go about this tbh.
Afaik, the only jets currently cleared for AGM-88G are F/A-18E/F, and F-35, so either only the super hornets will get it in-game, or they’ll go with “if it can run a HARM, it can run an 88G”.
The first option is clearly a problem because the whole point of adding the 88G is because NATO “needs” a competitor to the 31PD. Which adding it to a single airframe only 2 nations have doesnt really “solve”…
I also dont agree 100% with BLUFOR “needing” a 31PD equivalent, reduction in munition RCS, increase in HARM maneuverability, and maybe the addition of the 88D (prototype GPS variant) or 88E (C with MMW for terminal guidance vs radar shutoff) would allow an interesting asymmetrical capability situation.
Second option addresses the imbalance in long range ARM performance between both sides, at the expense of realism, since the 88G is for all intents and purposes a new missile, and we have no clue if any of the old HARM carriers can carry it too.
Really curious about how they will go about dealing with this whole situation in the end.