We need to increase the air-to-air rewards. Why do gamers always keep themselves locked in a pigsty by telling them to lower the rewards?
2 Likes
Air to air rewards are generally in a decent spot, even if they could probably be a bit higher. The problem is the rewards from base bombing(especially at jet/supersonic BRs) are so easy to get for the amount of effort put in that playing air to air is disincentivized for players who aren’t capable of consistently getting multiple kills a game.
If anything don’t “nerf” the fighter rewards. Just make the bomber rewards better.
You know… an actually good idea ? To encourage people to play bombers more?
2 Likes
I mean, a lot of fighters are now multirole so a2g is viable but bombers do really need to be reworked
the only time a fighter should have bombs is when they dont have there full kit cause stock grinding with like AIM-7Ms at 14.3 is absurd
2 Likes
As someone stockgrinding the f15a and constantly being uptiered to su30mkk br, aim7m vs pl12/rvvae, it damn isn’t fun.
But this is not balance reason. You cant just remove bomb armament from some planes just because one particular gamemode is trash. It would negatively affect all other gamemodes.
Because they can and pilots want. I personally dont see problem with it. What I see problem is ARB what is really crap gamemode which should be replaced by something better and thankfully it will be soon by NE.
Do you know who should get punished? Players flying straight to the base, not able to reach it, on maps basebombing has zero impact to the outcome of the battle…after 38k battles in ARB.
…which if we think about it from a real world perspective makes no sense, neither the fixation on “fighters”.
After all, the “real job” of airborne forces are to engage targets on the ground, be that enemy ground assets or infrastructure. Very simplified and provocatively, fighters only exist to deter the ground pounders from doing their job.
The game environment or meta of course is a different story, here the action packed fighter-against-fighter battle is more interesting and thus more common, but I find it would be a bit unfair to use this as argument against players who like to do ground pounding.
Already starting early in the days of military aviation, air forces of course tried to use those machines for as many roles as possible, if their suited for it, and already in WW2 fighters saw a lot of action and success in fighting forces on the ground. Just look e.g. at P-57, Tempest, etc, designed as fighters, but becoming formidable attackers at the same time.
Later that became even more pronounced, multirole becoming an important marketing aspect even, and Dassault even went so far as to advertise their Rafale as omnirole - suitable for EVERY role. And while we saw various different type of aircraft on US carriers for all the diferent roles (F-4’s as fighter bombers, A-4, A-7 and A-6 as strike aircraft, S-3 for anti sub warfare, etc.), now it’s only F/A-18’s or F-35’s plus some support types, because all the roles that were separated can now be performed by a single multirole airframe.
A big part of the problem I see lies with the very arbitrary labels that are applied to aircraft (and vehicles in general) in WT. Prime example that keeps popping up is for example the Milan, a dedicated attacker that is labelled fighter in WT, and thus often gets used in a way it’s not well suited for.
Also e.g. the F-5C comes to mind: Yes, again labelled a fighter, it actually served mostly as attacker. I’m actually not even sure I ever saw an F-5A or C with Sidewinders instead of their characteristic wingtip fuel pods. So why be upset that someone uses a napalm armed F-5A/C against bases? That’s exactly what they were used for in Vietnam…
2 Likes
If there is no impact anyway, than why everyone has not his own personal dimension for the same bases. That would be no more “Need For Speed: War Thunder” stupid races for a base, becouse everyone could hit the same base in the same time.
This is taken out of context because there are still maps base bombing makes sense. But not the maps he played while doing this.
RL is a whole different story. ARB isn’t able to picture RL in the slightest.
In my opinion the biggest problem is the reward system. The main goal of an ARB battle is to win it. As long as action with less impact are better rewarded than ones with more impact, something is wrong fundamentally. And as long as a horde of players earn their rewards to gain their ressources successfully with the most useless actions while giving a s*** of winning, this mode can be called broken.
Noone talked about ground pounding. But, let’s do it. Why players get any reward by killing ground units on for example falk lands or maps with the same design? Zero ticket bleed and you can’t finish the battle by killing all of them. So here we are back to “zero impact”.
What thought a lot about, but so far havent developped into a suggestion yet, are modular and realistic targets.
Right now our mission targets (bases) are literally hitpoints-based area targets with only cosmetic differences. different weapons have different damage modifiers, and in the current implementation incendiary bombs are exceptionally powerful against those bases.
What I would love to see is a move from hitpoint area targets to targets consisting of individual modules (vehicles, buildings, other infrastructure) that have to be destroyed with suitable weapons for the whole base to be killed, and the destruction of individual modules also giving reward.
So a variant for a mission target could be a factory, with individual buildings. Here e.g. precision munitions would be the best choice to kill the individually targeted buildings. Such a target could also be engaged with dumb bombs, either individually aimed or “carpet bombinbg style”, but that would be less effective and require more attacks or more aircraft attacking the individual targets. This would perfectly also reflect the development of weapon systems through the ages: At WW2 tiers, several bombers may be needed to clean out a whole base, in modern era a jet armed with several suitable guided weapons could engage and kill more sub-targets in one sortie/one run.
Another target type could be an assembly area or army camp, where light buildings and vehicles would have to be engaged. Those could be well suited for incendiaries and unguided rockets, GBU’s on the other hand would be less effective or overkill.
Yet another type could be bunkers (prime example airfields, which are already partially modular, but not on an "individual building " basis. Also point targets like bridges, power stations, etc. could very well be possible.
The individual targets would vary in strength and armor: while a tent or truck can be easily killed with an unguided rocket, a factory building may need a 500-1000 pounder, a bunker then a 200 pounder or in extremely armored cases a dedicated bunker buster (which we have in game, but actually are quite useless as their intended role is completely missing. Could even be a submarine bunker at WW2 levels, where the massive bombs designed for those targets would make more sense than using them as mini-nukes for Close Air Support…
As a result, in most cases such a modular mission target could not be killed by a single napalm slinger rushing it, but would require several attacks/sorties, maybe even in a coordinated effort, and all successful hits and kills would be rewarded. This would be much more interesting gameplay - and reduce the "base stealing " issue as there would be more targets to share.
there is that fighters go after bases and leave bombers/strike aircraft with nothing.
Mig-23ML (all mig-23s actually) all of the Premium F-4s, Mig-21S, F-104S and this are just the top they are countless other
I still don’t get why everybody still believes there is a clear sharp distinction between fighter and strike aircraft. That’s not the case in reality, and many aircraft are very well equipped for several roles and were/are also used in varying roles.
While Floggers and Fishbed were mainly used as fighter/interceptor, most of their variants were also used in air to ground roles by their many operators. The Phantoms are famous as multirole workhorses, and many starfighters were also used (infamously, see “Wittmenmacher” in Germany in a prominent strike role.
Real single-role fighters / interceptors are actually quite rare in military aviation history…
2 Likes
Also cant forget about the Mig-Eater Tonka :P
1 Like
Actually Floggers were very often used for bombing. Mainly in middle east and Afghanistan.
Zhrnutie
1 Like
because instead of putting on a-a missiles they replace them with napalms, the team end having 10 fighter jets with napalms and then they say why the lose all the time. strike aircraft and bombers lack the ability to have a-a weapons so they are left only with bombing and that is being taken by fighters, how am i expected to grind for example the su-24 if can bomb any bases? for me they should nerf napalm rewards
Seems like problem with ARB itself. That gamemode need to be replaced by something more sensible. Until that happens, the simulator is the only reasonable option for grinding the Su-24.
1 Like
It’s a problem between the ears of players and the design of warthunder itself. Players think every plane existing in warthunder has to fit every mode. Additionally there is a HORDE of GRB players abusing ARB. Farm SL/RP, spade their planes for GRB…
Cut the connection between ARB and GRB for rewards, and you will see how many players never touch ARB again.
And this argument about players could play other Air modes is also nosnense for them. Only ARB uses the same control and airframe system they have to use in GRB.