Yeah, it’s not necessary to make an ASM into an ATGM for the sake of making an additional loadout option for GRB, but I do understand the desire. Like the Typhoon at the moment having no FnF weapons, 6x Marte-ER ASMs would be quite useful if theyd double as ATGMs
Yeah me too! Give all those weapons!
Just please in a realistic way…
I’m already quite miffed that incediary bombs are a multitude more powerful at destroying bases than regular bombs, but then are of limited use against massed ground troops…
1 Like
Yeah… And looking at some of the aircraft OP mentioned, CBUs would be the vastly more valuable weapon
Welllllll- Napalm would do aloooot of damage to a troop baseee
1 Like
Ahhh, NOW we’re talking! I think a variety of bases with different properties, or better even modular bases would really be one exceptionally good thing for WT in general and Sim in particular!
I fully agree: A factory complex where I have several large, possibly fortified buildings should require a completely different approach and weapons than a tent camp…
3 Likes
Now that would be fun.
Also certain base types could be vulnerable to precision GBU drops as well
The paragraph clearly states that the RB04 is restricted to targeting landing ships, transport vessels, and escort groups—collections of ships of varying sizes.
Since it flies just 10–15 meters above the surface, it would likely struggle to hit ground targets smaller or more mobile than a small mansion.
Ha, I have an extensive suggestion essay in the works. Just not ready yet…
6 Likes
I’m looking forward to it
Sounds cool, i cannot wait when it can be read!
I made some more digging, RB-04 E had better guidance system and improved monopulse radar. Also the RB-04 C variant ( the initial product) could be manually guided using joystick and radar by second pilot / radar operator in A32A. still missile would flew wery close to ground, so in theory, it would act like bullpup?
3 Likes
Sounds more like Man-in-the-loop that they refuse to model on the AJ168
1 Like
what do you mean morvran_?
I think the AJ.168 had two modes: TV fire & forget (as modelled in WT), plus the “man-in-the-loop” mode where also after firing the TV image would be sent to the aircraft, and the crew having the possibility to fine-aim the missile still.
That’s actually what that pod is for under the Buccaneer’s wing.
Atm, WT has no weapons with such a mechanism, but it would be interesting to use. Not 100% sure, but I think at least some Walleye variants had similar capabilities: I’m pretty sure I’ve seen videos from Vietnam where the imagery from the bomb could be seen until impact into a bridge pylon, so I assume the crew would also have been able to use that image to guide the weapon…
Edit: Ok, found this on the Walleye:
1 Like
Keep in mind, Gaijin has done very little to improve gameplay in any mode for over 10 years. It’s clear the devs have very limited video game design knowledge and a very stubborn ‘if it does the bare minimum, don’t bother changing it’ mindset.
2 Likes
You can read how AJ168 is meant to work and the devs response to this in this bug report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Y5BrZ6gGHVXX
or with adding datalink to the Paveway IV
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zwZf7KIQ8Kba
Gaijin doesnt like adding weapon systems that can be directly controlled by the player for some reason beyond MCLOS
As far as I am aware. The TV FnF mode modeled by the devs is a total work of fiction as the original weapon mode cant be modeled.
Game design is always a balance between player expectations, technical limitations, and business realities. Not every change hits the mark.
Writing the devs off as lacking design knowledge or motivation does not reflect the complexity of maintaining a game as large and detailed as War Thunder. Constructive criticism helps more than blanket negativity.
1 Like
It’s just reality. Having very basic game modes and map designs that have only seen minimal changes in a decade is absurd. The devs intentionally went all in on inflating the game with more and newer vehicles and weapon systems, while keeping gameplay elements either static or barely patched to prevent them from falling apart. It’s clear they either don’t care or are somehow incapable of improving the gameplay.
1 Like
There are some aspects of the game that certainly fall within those categories.
But when you have well research and written bug reports that fix actually quite major issues sat for 2 or 3 years, it does get exceedingly frustrating.
and certain aspects of the game, such air Sim have been totally abandoned by the devs for no reason. They’ve probably lost a huge potential market simply because they just didnt seem to care
1 Like
Yes, the focus has largely been on adding new vehicles, nations, and equipment, since those are the things that drive player interest and revenue. However, saying the core gameplay has been completely ignored does not hold up. There have been actual changes volumetric damage modeling, adjustments to spawn mechanics, loadout balancing, and attempts to deal with BR compression.
It is completely fair to ask for deeper gameplay improvements, but dismissing the developers entirely overlooks the scale of the project and the progress that has been made. When the community has provided strong, focused feedback in the past, it has led to real improvements. That approach is far more effective than just venting frustration.
1 Like