why cnt I take HARMS with my A7 in the upper bracket?
Alright, time for my end of event review of Nuclear Thunder:
The Good:
- Most/All aircraft types can play a role towards victory (as opposed to the fighters only game-mode that air RB has become)
- Long persistent games mean players spend more time playing instead of in queue
- Increased complexity of AI ground units and their relations to each other provides a much more challenging and engaging gameplay loop for aircrafts of all type (but particularly ground attack specialists)
- More complex strategic situation allows both individual players and teams to choose how they engage with the game and work towards victory.
- Ground targets are (usually) well protected and feel much more engaging to strike (No unprotected “bombing targets” or convoys with only gun based AA nearby that can’t contend with long range munitions), requiring a degree of knowledge and skill that players never needed in WT air game-modes before.
What needs improvement:
- AI unit mix and distribution needs work (more on this below)
- Major balance concerns (more on this below)
- Nukes, while fun as a gameplay mechanic for an event, do not have a healthy gameplay loop atm, and are much too powerful for how little they cost. (Can feel almost impossible to stop a nuke carrying aircraft from nuking something important if you dont catch them very early)
- ARMs need improvement in their usage (clustered targets like Buk/HAWK sites make it nearly impossible to properly target multiple different targets in the same site efficiently, since its impossible to cycle through targets or tell what target you already launched on.
- Unit roles need to be better communicated to players
- Frontline not as dynamic as it should arguably be (players often don’t “feel” like they’re doing much since the frontline doesn’t move much no matter what you do to targets in a sector)
- Lack of targets in depth. Almost all targets are on the frontline or along the frontline airfields, and once the frontline airfields are destroyed, there isn’t much left to do for anyone not carrying nukes.
AI unit mix and distribution:
Spoiler
To preface this section, the current AI mix in Nuclear Thunder is MUCH better than anything seen in the rest of the game, be it air RB, air SB, or ground battles, so good job on that side of things, but there are improvements that could/need to be made.
For the “could” be made" improvements, some more target types would be nice. As it stands, the majority of AI units are frontline combat systems (MBT/IFV/SPAA/MLRS/SPH), or assets on the frontline that should only be there in limited quantities (depots). New target types such as bridges, pillboxes, and bunkers (both frontline and in the rear) would help flesh things out a lot while also hopefully not requiring too much extra work on your end. Of special note are bridges and bunkers:
- Bridges could slow down convoys, requiring them to reroute or stop and rebuild the bridge before continuing. This would pose an interesting dilemma for players, as frontline bridges could be used by both teams units, so destroying it early when your ground units are winning the sector would slow down your own progress, but destroying it when the enemy controls the sector could help you slow their advance. They’re also nice stationary targets that don’t require overly specialized PGMs.
- Bunkers could be split into 2 types: frontline bunkers which could destroy incoming enemy convoys and underground bunkers in the rear which act as hardened depots requiring specialized munitions (AP bombs, or air launched cruise missiles at higher BR’s)
For the “need to be made” improvements:
-
Depots need to be moved back from the frontline. As they currently operate, depots act as a very hard SHORAD threat for an entire section of the frontline that can only really be dealt with with nukes, and to some degree, long range rocket fire. ARMs and bombs just get shot out of the air by depot AA which is fine in regards to protecting the depot, but is less fine when they act more as near invincible AA batteries for sectors of the front than as what they are; depots, soft high value targets that need protection instead of providing it.
-
Close up the gaps in the sides of the frontline. At the moment, players can just fly around the frontlines and directly attack high value assets in the rear with little to no real effort by just flying slightly to the sides of the frontline. Having ways to circumvent the frontline GBAD and strike HVTs is fine, but not when its as easily done as it is atm. Some AA in the mountain valley along the northwestern portion of the frontlines and along the coast for the southeastern portion of the frontlines (ships with AA would be really nice for this part of the map) would be a good way to mitigate how easy it currently is to circumvent all GBAD (atm, from frontline airfields, it takes ~5min (if not less) to just fly along the coast/valley and nuke the opponents frontline airfield. Forcing players to either make a “hole” in the air defense network or take a longer detour around it would help in making high value assets like airfields and medium/long range AA systems feel less “unprotected”
-
Convoys should only route towards strategic positions like depots to move the frontline. Having convoys move towards and occupy “strongholds” feels pointless, as it doesnt meaningfully move the frontlines, it just means one team has stationary targets that do nothing a little closer to their airfields.
Major balance concerns:
Spoiler
I don’t want to comment too much on plane vs plane balance (thats more of a BR thing), but there is one instance of eggregiously bad balance that was seen during the event that was so bad I feel obligated to mention.
The loaner Su-25T is so far beyond anything the US gets for ground strike AND SEAD during the event, that it honestly made it hard not to win as the Russians if you knew what you were doing and nobody intercepts you along the frontline (which is rare).
Case in point, here’s a screenshot from my most recent game playing the Russians using the loaner Su-25T:
1st life, 15 ground kills (took care of the AA myself, and then 1x convoy and 2x strongpoints, ran out of munitions so I J'ed out:
Unless intercepted or friendly players are contesting your ground targets, the Su-25T should always manage to get you at least enough SP for a 5kT nuke, as it can deal with a stronghold (3x MBTs, 2x IFV, 1x SPAA = ~360sp) solo using the 2x Kh-25MPU + 16x Vikhr loadout, which is not something any of the US jets are capable of (You’ll generally need 1 life in a SEAD aircraft like the A-7E, then come back with ground attack munitions to clear out the stronghold and other nearby ground targets if need be). Its closest competitior is the A-10C, which can’t do its own SEAD, can’t reliably strike the convoys (AGM-65D seem unable to reliably hit the convoys currently, could be a bug, could be their abysmal 2.5deg/s track rate, as they seem to always land behind the targets line of travel, suggesting the convoys move too fast for the seeker atm)
Now, for the MAJOR point of balance that NEEDS to be revisited, SP per target type NEEDS to be symmetrical. As it currently stands, SP appears to be allotted equally per ground kill.This seems fine on the surface until you realize there are target types that are asymetrical across teams, most notably the medium range GBAD batteries.
A HAWK battery consists of 11x elements:
- 6x HAWK launchers
- 2x HAWK tracking radars
- 1x HAWK acquisition radar
- 1x FlaRakPz 1
- 1x Gepard 1A2
Its Russia equivalent, the Buk battery, only consists of 5x elements:
- 2x Buk TELAR
- 1x Buk TADS
- 1x Shilka
- 1x Osa
This leads to a MASSIVE imbalance in SP rewarded for taking out mid-range GBAD batteries. A single HAWK battery rewards a little over 2x the SP when destroyed compared to a Buk battery
Rewards for destroying Buk battery: 252sp (minus the Osa that was set on fire but didnt die, total SP reward is likely ~302)
Both net you roughly the same (likely the exact same) SP per unit destroyed (~60), but destroying a Buk battery gets you just enough SP for a 5kT nuke, while destroying a HAWK battery gets you enough to get a 30kT nuke. This is clearly a massive discrepancy and needs to be rectified going forward.
Overall, I’ve had a blast during this event. Once the SP received per air kills was toned down a bit, the ground target rewards were increased a bit, and nukes were made slightly more expensive, the strategic bombers became rarer and the value of delivering a nuke as well as the cost of dying in a nuke aircraft felt a lot better. Matches weren’t being ended by 6 players spamming game ending nuke jets, and could develop more appropriately based on the actions and decisions made by both teams instead of who was most successful at killing the most targets in a head-on before ramming their foreheads into the enemy runway over and over again, yet clutch strategic nukes did sometime occur to save the game, which was a much more exciting and rewarding experience. I’ll be looking forward to the further development of this style of gamemode!
As for the AA discussion, I know this is a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I like how capable they currently are. There are some issues (namely Buk being able to track and fire through the ground), but I do enjoy them as the threatening but manageable systems they currently are in-game, and think more players will come around to this point-of-view over time as they interact with the systems. Its a good thing to have AA systems that punish mistakes and reward players who attack them properly.
P.S: A Nuclear Thunder style game-mode would be the perfect place to allow players to use more complex and specialized munitions that would either be too powerful or too specialized for other gamemodes so as to tackle more formidable defenses. For example:
- Air launched cruise missiles (Taurus/SCALP/JASSM/Kh-101/etc…)
- Cluster munitions
- LOAL munitions
These munition types could be added for a top tier version of this game-mode where GBAD systems like Pantsir, IRIS-T SLM, and others are seen, allowing people to scratch their itch for more complex and powerful weapon systems without immediately destroying the balance of ground battles.
6 Likes
Another thing i have to add and it is serious and concerning if you ask me , because it’s a pattern for the devs here.
You make a map. Yeah… USE IT. You make 120x120 …you use 60x60 (or less in some cases) .
You nade 260x260 (or how much it was) you use the 100.
You’re placing everything ALWAYS on a line.
Here you had sea… nothing in the sea. You have SAM equipped ships though for carrier group!
Behind the mountains , nothing. And those empty spaces could be a map on their own…They are literally half the map. EX. Behind the mountains you could have an Air cap point for superiority purposes , slowly bleeding tickets etc.
And i find this concerning, because you just do it in every map.
5 Likes
Its actually disapointing that Gajin didnt make a Profile picture, a cool B52 Pilot profile picture would be peak, with this helmet:
6 Likes
In this case, I think it may have been a unit count issue, but I agree that if possible, more of the map should be used.
Wouldve also been nice to get detailed cockpits for these 2 aircrafts, bit of a bummer, feel unfinished imo…
4 Likes
Detailed cockpits? Brother, almost all bombers cockpits have been left terrible modeled, and the B52 and Tu-95 arent no exception, unless some dude wants to model them perfectly, then gaijin wont do it, trust me.
I know, but TT bombers are TT bombers, theres a decent bit of them and their playerbase is low so I can kind of “forgive” them not getting detailed cockpits. The B-52H and Tu-95M are event vehicles though, they’re prizes to be won and honestly, they’re mostly made to be hangar queens in-game imo. Not giving them detailed cockpits feels like they cheaped out on them a little.
Tbf though, I guess it can be seen a bit like an “April Fools” joke. An unfinished reward for a joke day.
1 Like
This aint no goddamn april fools joke, is js being lazy.
At least get a guy to model the cockpits and pay him some money if they arent gonna do it.
why gajin do the modeling if they can look for someone who is willing to do it (mayber he will cook the cockpit? And gajin, forgot to add these helemts in the event, evrey single pilot who drop from the b52 a massiv hydrogen bomb became blind. (I still wont tho a profile picture of a b52 pilot)
Not sure how but succeeded getting the B-52, at great expense (SL) and only 5 out of 6 achievement, but I did it. Wish I could’ve gotten the TU-95 with it, but given the crash course over these 11 days, I’m guess I’m fortunate. I got a taste of the Cold War age, though I’m told it takes years to get to that stage from BR1 through casual play. So I’m going to take a break from WT and get myself centered. Maybe I’ll get a gaming computer so I don’t play Ultra Low mode.
To those who helped this nutcase, thank you.
3 Likes
I got both and like 5 million SL, untill the cases came and i entered bankruptcy, still on this gamemode you normally get more than double de SL you spent.
I am in the same boat as you brother, I am a ground main and occasionally play air for CAS planes so this event was pretty rough at the start but as time passed I got to learn a lot about cold war jets and weapons tech and started getting decent.
I was also unable to grind Tu-95 along with B-52 as I had time constraint but overall I am happy that I was able to get one exclusive Bomber which might never be available again.
There will be a tech tree version btw.
And in some time people will be able to get them from the gambling boxes too, like the WWI event vehicles.
BOYS! I was able yesterday to finish the last achivment of the USA Pilot, and I finally get the B52, now I’ve both of the bomber, finallly. The best thing is that for the TU95 (3) free moodifications I get the 9,000kg bomb
3 Likes
well done, you guys managed to ruin the one good mode you’ve had in years 
7 Likes
Imagine martels or even ALARM’s! Hell, add the shrike and we could get a vulcan with 4 of them!
1 Like
lol . . . just kidding
While it was a “good/bad” April Fool’s Day event(I miss fun events vs “testing events myself”)
depending on your perspective, I did not even try it at all . .
3 Strike Rule . . .
- I don’t fly Air RB, 2) I don’t play high/top tier jets and 3) I won’t ever use any
nuclear weapons playing War Thunder, so . … . literally nothing for me.
Yeah I would have liked to get a B-52, just to have, but not worth the trouble for
me personally. And from all the complaining I witnessed, I do not regret that choice . . lol
While I am not that interested in the Pakistani jet for the next event, I will do it anyway.
I get to play the mode/BRs I enjoy to get the 35k per stage and can do my BP tasks
as I go with very little stress about playing . . . that part I like the most.
It makes me sad to see so many players losing their minds over events and how to do them.
I would like to see more “fun” stuff and less . . . “pressure” on the players.
(Even tho, that pressure is largely put there by the players anyway . . .lol)
I do too, the issue is how many there are and how closely they’re all clustered near the frontline. Also the omnipotence of their radar control and their respawning mechanics. AI units should only be allowed to respawn from vehicle depots, and must transit to their desired location. Also, Osas and Flakrads should just flat out not fire when in transit.
I also wish they had an internal ammo counter which must be resupplied by logi trucks from ammunition depots.
Yes!!! They’re depots, theres no reason they should be all clustered near the frontline. They should be spread out over the entire map, with the current depot section being reserved for SHORAD, AI ground units and fortified frontline emplacements.
5 Likes