Yeah the Tents, from a standpoint of Model and logic wouldnt be a problem for Rockets. I agree. But they would be useless against buildings like Factories. I think its a good decision to get rif of it, but the bomb nerf is kinda sad…
Maybe not exactly useless, just look at Zuni rockets tested on a concrete bunker (6:26 min) https://youtu.be/DNqzRk_r1zM?t=379
the narrator is talking about penetrating heads, i guess thats something special? The Rocket penetrates the concrete as far as it can with kinetic energy and then boom?
I think so.
Big bombs help most bombers tho, as it’s usually most efficient to carry bigger ones. Nobody likes the little bombs nerf, even if it was a bug. But buffing big bombs helps out the suffer busses that are bombers.
1 Like
The bases in our game have a standard appearance and their strength does not depend on whether it is a factory made of reinforced concrete or a campsite - their strength depends on the BR of the battle, not on how they look.
3 Likes
Ah yes, cause players never use supersonic afterburning jets according to your post. Everyone’s just in F86s and props. /s
React to what? They’re 10km away and don’t know anyone’s looking at them let alone firing unless a team mate fires a radar missile at them.
It’d certainly be interesting if they did, since they could encourage the use of more diverse loadouts (potentially also allow for more targets and better ability to deconflict for an excess number of Strike aircraft on a given team) than whatever has the greatest TNT equivalency.
1 Like
My guy, you had a solid radar lock on it
Any sane player would think “Huh, something is trying to lock me. Better do something”
Granted, this would expose the afterburner to missile which would make locking easier
EDIT: At the same time, it also begs the question of why bother with heat seeker in first place at that range?
The radar lock you should know is exclusively for testing purposes and that wouldn’t occur in a real match. It should be obvious…
So as I said, IR missile locks don’t give warnings as you falsely claim.
1 Like
Firstly, I never stated that IR missile locks give warning. Read more carefully next time.
I will give you point that it can be done but is it really practical in ARB?
You fired on an AI attacker which pretty much flies in straight line but on a target that is maneuvering? Wouldn’t missile run out of energy by the time it gets close?
AIM-9L has a range of over 14km, I forget its exact range but maybe it’s on wikipedia or another site; War Thunder has an equal range to that claim from a previous test.
At 300 meters per second target, the range of a head-on shot is closer to <5km.
1 Like
i mean, why not implement better models then :) i like the tents but i bet you could do much nice things with different base types. maybe even a rehaul of the whole base system.
Yep, the visuals are just “flair”, essentially. Something to look at that “fits the aesthetic” instead of firing ordnance at a glowing UI circle or similar.
Form follows function, not the other way around, something we often see people forgetting in game design discussions.
You are right, i agree with you. But to be fair. These bases are in the game since when? i cant even remember. At least before ground was implemented. So, there was a lot of time :D Details - Models are awesome though - are not the strongsuite of the snail and it would be awesome to see little things that make the picture better.
4x500kg, Su-17 still carries it’s missiles and can fight properly :)
Bombs are like bonus points for it
Or it can be called fraud,
Imagine you invest in a project and the bank says you can earn $100 per day.
After getting enough investors, the bank suddenly said they found it a bug and would reduce the payment to $80, what will happen to this bank?
The bug is that the rocket can get enough damage, but not about earning, this is the other way to reduce the earning, which is not acceptable.
1 Like
Further there is also the F-111A Flight manual, which I think should be fine under the source restrictions
As such details about the AN/AJQ-20 (Bombing-Navigation Computer) can be found; beginning PDF page #95.
and the AN/ASG-23 (Lead Computing Optical Sight System) is described beginning PDF page #134.
1 Like
It’s not fraud.
1 Like
My complaining and other unconstructive meanings.
Oh, so snail nerfed rocket damage to bases, because, it’s “realistic” (not so), and lot of small caliber rockets cannot damage structures (can), and there they want be “historically accurate” (no).
But in the case of realizing/implementation of the real vulnerabilities of base buildings to various types of impact, they decided to forget about “realism” and simply plug the hole with “game conventions”.
As some say - “s**t in one hand and dream in the other”, right?
More constructive part
While they can just leave the thing which work (work good, and ain’t harm anyone).
Or make job properly - just make the bases different - closer ones (frontline FOB/bunkers/big concrete buildings) is reinforced, and need a really punch (bombs/high caliber rockets) to be harmed (like armour value, or something like that).
Napalm, btw can ignore this armor, because it’s liquid (sticky tho), and hot.
When those, which far ones, is unarmoured (tent camps, ammo/fuel silos/stashes, radar stations/SAM emplacements/firebases etc.) and can be destroyed even by small-caliber rockets/gunpods/etc.
(Bombs can too, for sure. Splash go boom.)
And forward airfields can be destroyable (but very durable) too, with alot of stuff to break (like in sim battles, but more… precisely, I guess).
Or even both (close, and far) bases can be same, including all types of targets - light and heavy armoured.
For all type of ordnance been needed to completely wipe out the base, and this would encourage teamplay, giving more players opportunity to have rewards from bombing - not to the fastest ones.
Non-useless bases
(If even forget about make them (bases) useful, and different bases will provide different advantages:
Radar “light up” enemies in fixed zone, and even if future can guide heavy SAM sites;
Ammo/fuel/spare parts stashes will make rearm/refuel/repair on airfield faster;
Artillery/TML emplacements pounding enemy positions (bases too).
Helicopters landing pad/air control tower spawn waves of AI helicopters raids/assault aircrafts.
Etc.)
Looks like ideas for further topic.
Old, but maybe gold idea. Long one, so read it, when finish other.
I had one on .ru, about game-ender in form of AI-heavy bombers (B-52/Tu-95, B-1B/Tu-160, fast enough to have chance, slow enough to be interceptable (many chaff/flares, maybe ECM)), which respawn on high altitude (15+ km) after friendly airfield (from different places - I don’t like vulching), and try reach enemy one, for destroy it.
(Sim battle scheme - 5 parts, to destroy each - 1 bomber must get all his ordnance on it.
In each wave of bombers (every 2-3 minutes, first wave going after 5 minutes from battle starts/all base been wiped) is 5 planes.
To destroy airfield (instawin), 5 bombers must load off at those parts.
Bases - is heavy SAM sites. Forward airfield - is a radar station, covered by light SPAA (Gepard/Enisey).
Each one (base) launch 1 missle, and can shot down 1 bomber (if all launched - only 1 bomber need to be intercepted by players).
So players need to destroy enemy bases, and protecc their ones, to make work with bombers not so complicated.
And this even realistic - player clash is no more reasonless bloodbath - it now a fight for air superiority and SEAD, for bombers can do their work.
Just implement a precise damage model/calculation, to this part of bases (like to vechiles/tanks in columns), to make precision of strike important - no just shooting in one building, and kick HP out of all base, no.
Players need to literally destroy all base structures/stocks/trucks on base, to destroy it all.
And this make balance in weaponry - rockets lighter, faster, and can be launched from distance at low altitudes, but need precision - you must aim vital points to do damage.
While bombs is heavy, but even not the biggest ones enough to be landed near target to destroy it.