Now, I should preface this saying there’s two [Operation] Afghanistans. There’s the large simulator version that has tank battles with ZSU-23s periodically spawning, and the enemy/ally territory lines, and there’s the small version that follows the pattern of most ARB maps. I will refer to these two as as [Operation] (big) and [Operation] (small) respectively.
In a recent update, Gajin replaced 10.7+ [Alternate History] Afghanistan with the two [Operation] Afghanistans. The issue is, [Operation] Afghanistan is absolute GARBAGE.
The main differences between [Alternate History] and [Operation] lie in how big the maps are, where the battlefield takes place, and the ground ai that spawn.
[Alternate History] spawns multiple very large convoys, and have dozens of fixed ai emplacements scattered around the map and the central airfield.
[Alternate History] has mountains between the two spawns.
[Alternate History] the two airfields are comparable in distance to low tier jet battles.
͏
[Operation] (small) spawns a handful of 4x fixed ai emplacements. No convoys spawn at all.
[Operation] (small) the battlefield is almost entirely flat, with a handful of hills here and there.
[Operation] (small) the two airfields are standard distance for high tier realistic jet battles.
͏
[Operation] (big) spawns periodic ai tank battles with dozens of ai targets.
[Operation] (big) the battlefield is the same as (small).
[Operation] (big) the two airfields are standard simulator battle distance (even further than standard high tier realistic jet battles).
[Operation] (small) is worse for fighters, attackers, and bombers. Fighters suffer from bland, flat air battles with no terrain to spice things up. Attackers suffer massively from lack of ground targets and no terrain to hide them from enemies, and slower attack aircraft like A-10, A-7, and Su-25/39 are especially screwed over by the large map size. Bombers also suffer from the lack of terrain to hide from enemies. FURTHERMORE fixed ai emplacements have extremely pitiful payout for destroying, and [Operation] (small) only has the fixed ai emplacements.
[Operation] (big) also has the issue of being too big and having a bland battlefield, however it has more ground targets than (small)
Note: [Operation] and [Alternate History] Afghanistan are technically the same size, but the two teams spawn closer. [Alternate History] Afghanistan
Remove every afghanistan except EC one. Small maps are abhorrent, and the removal of Alternate History made early jets far more enjoyable. I don’t want alternate history back (too small) and small operation afghanistan should be removed from map rotation.
This whole post is a terrible opinion. Big maps like the EC Afghanistan are exactly what we need for high tier jet battles. Alternate History Afghanistan map is a great map too, the best option would be to have both the EC Afghanistan and Alternate History Afghanistan available for high tier.
I find that to be unnecessary for RB. In the discussion revolving around support for Air RB EC, for example, an oft unsaid but still acknowledged fact is that the unique mechanics called for in a hypothetical Air RB EC are already present in Simulator battles. The triple airfield arrangement is one such mechanic. The gap between Air RB and SB is too big for some, but SB is already unpopular as it is, and could use more players.
Moreover, the unique nature of ARB makes the single airfield (plus forward airfield) arrangement better. Fighter aircraft naturally tend towards the centre of the map in most battles. This allows attack aircraft to go to the sides of the map and have a chance at attacking AI units in battles that spawn, if they happen to spawn there. And bombers (usually meaning fighter-bombers due to the restriction of EC maps to high tier) to target bases more safely. In RB, markers make sure that attack aircraft and bombers are targeted easily; it wouldn’t be fun to have fighter aircraft be common sights everywhere around the map.
Until we get a prob RB EC gamemode, large maps are simply bad without a single redeeming quality. The only time where large maps are good is when you reach BVR combat.
We have BVR combat with SARH missiles. If you consider a range of 25km to be BVR, which is logical, 11.3 would be a good minimum BR.
Also, large maps have many redeeming qualities. More benefits than downsides, for many people. Large maps allow for high-energy, high-altitude, long range combat. They allow for flanking and ambush tactics (if they are wide as well). EC maps are the best Air RB maps; they allow for diverse playstyles (attackers and bombers) due to the EC mechanics and AI targets.
Really, the only downsides are the high time to target for subsonic aircraft (like A-10, Su-25). Otherwise, there isn’t much harm in flying for 2 more minutes before engaging. Unless you have a deficit of attention. Actually, in that case there is no harm either, because you can alt+tab out and do something else while flying there.
[Alternate History] Afghanistan i plenty large for planes like F-4C/E, F-8E, or Mig-21 to reach 15-20k ft and still be outside effective firing range, so the SARH BVR argument doesn’t make sense.
You could do this on [Alternate History] Afghanistan quite easily as there’s many many miles of open space north of the battlefields, and mountains for sneaky flanking south of the battlefield.
So again, the flanking/ambush argument doesn’t make sense either.
7-9 minutes of flying in a straight line is bad gameplay, but that’s not the only issue. Large maps increase the changes of subsonic strike aircraft getting intercepted before reaching the battlefield.
