I disagree, if you read my posts I’ve explained in detail why I think it’s bad for gameplay, so have a good amount of other people in here.
Also this thread is for Simulator Battles, not RB. I’m suggesting using SB as sort of a playtest. Although a lot of people seem to want this change in RB too. Just pointing it out since you’ve hardly touched Air Sim whatsoever. Certainly not top-tier
From War Thunder’s official page “About the game” section:
War Thunder is the most comprehensive MMO military game (…) dedicated to aviation, armoured vehicles, and naval vessels (…)
In War Thunder, aircraft, attack helicopters, ground forces and naval vessels collaborate in realistic competitive battles.
Over 2,500 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, ground vehicles, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.
War thunder is and has always been a game that has taken pride into diving into as much realism as possible while remaining “arcade” in the sense that it can be played by anyone with a mouse and keyboard. The magic of War Thunder is combining realistic damage models, physics, ballistics and war machinnery behaviour with arcade-like controls (except for the Simulator mode).
IIRC the Aim-54s shouldn’t suffer from multipathing because they can hit cruise missile targets from 50 ft above water.
So effectively writing off 2 classes of missiles is “one of the best mechanics in game”? The only reason mutipath is still in effect is because the matchmaker is still stuck at 16v16 and the devs are seemingly incapable of making new game modes.
Where are they? The people you’re talking about are very few in number
If this change only happened in sim I have no horse in the race, however if this change became present in Realistic Battles I would be completely opposed to it.
Firstly, I do not believe the format of 16v16 would benefit from a reduction in the effectiveness in multipathing because I believe it would exacerbate the effect of early eliminations on the snowball effect. If your team has even a few people less that are trying to engage in BVR you will simply be forced to defend until you are destroyed or your opponents give up. I don’t believe there is much recourse here as closing within your MAR isn’t favorable and you have no way to aggress if you chose to go cold.
Secondly, I believe this will create a huge balance issue at the battle ratings where planes with pulse doppler radar first appear. I don’t believe it will be feasible for planes like the J-35XS (10.7 in RB) to have much counterplay against a plane like the F-4S (11.3) or MiG-23MLD (11.3) because simply getting close to use your cannon or IR missiles is not feasible if they are aware of your position, and you have no RWR and a very limited amount of countermeasures to use if you have to defend against a radar missile. The OP points out correctly that at top tier the meta very much favors places that have for forgiving flight performance such as the JAS-39 Gripen, which is true, however I believe such a change would create a shift entirely in the other direction, where the quantity of radar missiles would have an outsized effect on the effectiveness of an aircraft, making something like the Su-27 with 6 R-27ER have a considerable advantage over an aircraft like the F-16C which is limited to 2 AIM-7M
Thirdly, and finally, if as you propose this change is implemented it would make it virtually impossible to enjoy the kind of BFM combat that many players such as myself enjoy as it would be impractical or impossible to close within the distance required to fight somebody using the maneuverability of the aircraft. I think that in this instance particularly an exception must be made to sacrifice realism for the sake of gameplay. The way that the current ‘ground skimming’ meta works does not necessarily prevent you from playing for ‘BVR’ combat, as ground skimming to avoid missiles creates a disadvantage in terms of the amount of energy you are able to store by not climbing, as well as negatively impacting your fuel economy and the range of your own missiles. However, if your change was implemented I am of the opinion that it would negatively impact the variety of possible gameplay and force players to engage in a very repetitive format of climb> fire missiles at optimal range> defend that I believe many who are seeking a more ‘hands on’ style of combat would dislike, and those who are playing planes without the ability to engage in this type of gameplay would entirely disdain.
I understand your concerns, thank you for your input. I’d like to disagree over that it would exacerbate the snowball effect, if anything people will keep more distance to eachother and it would eliminate the IR slinging furball.
You bring up some issues not relevant to the thread though
Yes, the sim community is small. There are a few discords where we interact, including some sim threads.
They are also present in the 60-400 likes that this post and the supporters of this thread have received so far.
They are not
They are.
They are not, 60 people is about 0.000001%
I still believe that what I percieve to be the negative impact of this change would have on gameplay be felt if it only applied to FOX-3 missiles, however I believe some of the balance issues wouldn’t exist, which is fair. I still believe that the IR slinging furball, in which you have the ability to react and defend without putting yourself in an entirely disadvantageous position is preferable to a situation in which the first person to launch a FOX 3 in an engagement is at an overwhelmingly superior position to their target.
As to the fact that the thread exists for simulator battles, I cannot speak to how it would affect the gameplay in simulator specifically since I do not play regularly and have not played at high tiers in SB, however I do believe that some of my concerns would still be relevant to sim battles players, and that a change applied to the performance of missiles in sim may also be applied to those missiles in realistic.
This is the sim community we’re talking about. Some days we only have 80-100 players total in all of air sim throughout the lobbies, although it’s gotten better recently.
This is not a thread for RB, I’m not trying to change that. Based off some of the (very few) negative responses I’m very skeptical they’ve even read my post. The other guy hadn’t even touched top-tier air sim ever.
Whether or not you are trying to change it, suggesting that you are using Air-SB as a play-test sets off alarm bells for me that a change like this would not be limited to sim.
Sure. You’ll be happy to hear devs are not in favor of it currently, however it’s never been brought up as a feature for sim. They are also able to switch it on/off or change it for different game-modes, they recently did turn off ground radar multipath for simulator exclusively IIRC.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it coming to RB. Sim EC and Air RB are two VERY different game-modes, and Gaijin is aware of this. For RB I honestly don’t see how you guys are going to get much resemblance of real life when you’re being funneled into 16v16 games like cattle and all spawn at the same time on the same airfield… In sim EC, games can last 3+ hours, there are 3 airfields you can spawn at, maps are 128x128km, you can leave/join at any time and there’s no crew lock.
With all due respect, I’d like to keep this thread to simulator discussion as It’s too much to ask of anyone to try to justify balancing a feature like multipath for 2, very very different game-modes.
This change would somehow make top tier sim even worse than it already is. On the deck, instead of just worrying about smokeless missiles, there’s now ARHs from halfway across the map to worry about!
Reducing/removing multipath wouldn’t make players climb more. You’re harder to spot on the deck, and it’s less work to defeat radar missiles.
Also, reducing/removing multipath would just let people min range ARHs on the deck and get free kills or, at worst, trade because ARHs still track after you’re dead.
You’re free to climb and spam ARHs at Chinese airfield bombers and other DCS BVR larpers, but the deck should always be a counter to your shitty, unfun mechanic.
War Thunder isn’t and will never be the game to live out your BVR fantasies. Just go play DCS, man.
I entirely agree. 30 - 60 meters, as well as a much weaker effect. This may still allow the occasional missile to be nullified in rare cases and encouraging BVR.
I think the maps in War Thunder are too small for actual BVR gameplay and the lack of some actual terrain would make it that much more difficult to defend.
I mean how far apart from each other are airfields on average, 100km?
In my opinion removing the multipathing effect would negatively affect gameplay and just make the game less fun and turn it into DCS at home.
Reducing multipath on Sim would actually grant a LOT of planes an actual chance of denying the merge to AIM-9M spammers, planes with UFO flight models, or planes that have both.
For players who want to still abuse multipath, there’s maps like Denmark, Tunisia, Dover Strait, all the variations of Stalingrad, Smolensk and Sinai.
What are u on about, the sim section of the forum always has people talking lmao. And previous multipathing threads specific to the sim community have indeed had the large majority of sim players in favour of realistic multipathing changes consistently - compared to rp multipathing threads where it is more contentious.
