That’s my only problem. You are fighting and if you have your attention in the MiG for example and don’t see the OSA launching if it gets to 4km you are done…because when you are evading the first one , there are other 2 comming and maybe from different angle from different system that you may didn’t see .
I haven’t played after the change to reloads and thinning their numbers though. But Sunday, last time i played, usually that was the case…
Was that in datamines? Because i didnt see that in patchnote.
Tho there is no doubt OSA is basically a one-hit-kill rn. Its impossible to dodge if not hide behind rock
1 Like
Question: i cant select a turret onto the the B-52H. Is that also a bug or is there specific button to do so?
you need to set a keybind to this
I have it, i cycle through cameras and there is just no turret view. THere are 3rd person, angle viewer, bomb sight and thats all
You have to be in first person view for the gunner, just enable the “camera from the aircraft gunner sight”
1 Like
Strange. Would test it today, maybe the recent bugfix did make it. The day before yesterday i couldnt toggle that view. Thanks!
Ah so it wont show until i choose that setting? I turned it off as with most of the planes it makes aim harder
yep, it seem that it doesnt have a third person view for it
That must be a bug surely
it doesnt have a third person view because its only a tailgun, if it had a turret that covered more than 90 degrees it would be in third person
well, teh IL-2 also dont have such capabilities but they are capable of shooting with 3rd person view
does the IL-2 have more than one turret? maybe its because of that
I think the reason they did this is because they want to eventually implement the radar gunsight
1 Like
No. only one MG with a gunner on tail. Limited angles much. 1st person view also shows the MG and a tail there, thus why i choose to use 3rd person
all gunners in game have a third person view, this is just a bug specific to the b52, even the b66 with similar tail gun radar combo have a third person view
2 Likes
No? I have no issues with ppl who dont usually play sim playing sim, I welcome it, and have gotten quite a few friends into it as well, I was just pointing out that if people are only coming to a gamemode strictly for the rewards, thats not a community, thats just people abusing a gamemode for ease of rewards. I used the term tourist because that’s the one i always hear the sim community throw around. I do however agree the sim community is extremely toxic and elitist and I wasn’t helping there by using that term, so my bad on that point.
No, as I explicitly stated, I think rushing the strat bomber itself is a major issue. It ends matches early and doesnt let the battle develop. Reducing pvp SP rewards, making the strat bomber more expensive, and increasing the requirements for escalation levels all solve the strat bomber rushing issue, but they dont solve the game incentivizing suicide diving objectives or crowds of enemies, which is something limiting SP gain to once a player lands does do alongside limiting ppl’s ability to rush the strat bomber.
Its not meant to punish nuke planes, its meant to punish suicide strats, and regardless of what you say, the meta PVP strat is very clearly suicide rushing airfields non-stop. I wouldnt have nearly as much of an issue with the game ending on a strat bomber if the player that got it got 18 air to air kills without a single death before getting to spawn it (or managed to get 18 kills and land to claim the SP for them all)
No offense, but that just sounds like a skill issue regarding dying to the Osa’s. They’re easy to deal with when using ARMs.
I still disagree with this. regarding your points:
- I dont have much of an issue with a single plane being able to kill an AF if its not defended properly. Ive had plenty of matches where a secondary airfield (and sometimes even a frontline airfield) make it through the whole match because it is consistently and effectively defended
- SL/RP rewards are fine as is. (Also not sure how you got to bases having 1/3 the health of a 30kT, it takes 3x 5kT (15kT) to kill an airfield atm, so it should be 1/2 the health)
- Primary issue with secondary bases falling quickly is that they’re horribly defended. They tend to just have base AA and a nearby theater level GBAD site, compared to the frontline bases having layers of SHORAD and nearby Hawk/Buk batteries. The obvious holes in the GBAD network (the coast and the mountain valley) should be patched with more AA, and the airfields should be better defended, rather than just increasing the required number of nukes to kill them.
And your plan is just to effectively reduce their damage even further…
Dying to a depot respawning beneath you is a fringe case at best, but I can agree that’d be annoying. It is weird that they respawn as much as they do though (or even that they respawn at all).
Increasing the rewards for ground strike just doesn’t work with the nukes due to how much things you can kill with a single nuke. Can’t have both and keep the game balanced.
Games aren’t ending on base health, they’re ending on strat bombers. Increasing secondary base health isnt going to change that.
Interesting proposition
1 Like
Thanks for the explanation. Now im a bit calmer
1 Like
- Primary issue with secondary bases falling quickly is that they’re horribly defended. They tend to just have base AA and a nearby theater level GBAD site, compared to the frontline bases having layers of SHORAD and nearby Hawk/Buk batteries. The obvious holes in the GBAD network (the coast and the mountain valley) should be patched with more AA, and the airfields should be better defended, rather than just increasing the required number of nukes to kill them.
I would also add that in my experience the asymmetry of the map & of the delivery vehicles are a problem as well. The US GBAD sites are clustered in between the two secondary airfields, rendering what should be incredibly powerful assets that need to be eliminated first useless at defending airbases.
Another issue is that the MiG-23 and Su-24 are just objectively better delivery vehicles then the F-4 Phantom. The MiG is perfect for suicide bombing, being fast and a small target, while the Su-24 is far better for long range work due to its drop tanks.
I agree that the SP system needs to be reworked if this is to become a permanent mode, but nukes are only 1/2 of the equation. The delivery vehicles also need to be looked at. Which is why Im super hesitant about the F-111F as a nuclear carrier. It combines absurd speed with long range, which would give it the capability to strike pretty much any target that does not have a constant CAP practically for free.
2 Likes