This also would somewhat fix strat bombers and bases being stolen by Wyverns and alike. They are still made out of wet cardboard, but hey, at least you dont have to race against faster planes
That’s what I’m thinking too. Instead of barring players from choosing to bomb in their fighter, Gaijin should incentivize A2A more. But of course, this is Gaijin and bvvd will probably just nerf the bombing rewards to be just as bad as A2A instead.
2 Likes
Or M18 hellcats redesignation as a light tank from a tank destroyer when an IRL it was a tank destroyer
Erm… I was expected to get rock-throwing to me when I wrote this
But no likes or dislikes either feel a bit awkward.
:d
Should’ve I made it shorter maybe?
The main issue is the MAPS. All the ARB maps are designed around WWII aircraft not modern aircraft. Redesigning the maps to be bigger, and have more ground/Navel targets to go after would help solve the issue. Drop tanks or napalm, cant hold down after burning the whole map to get to a base so you would have to fly slower to get there or put on the drop tanks and engage in air to air, ether attacking the ground attackers or providing cover for your attackers.
Radar installations, Munition warehouses, Ports, Bases, AA defense, Harden bunkers that need those laser guided bunker busters, secondary airfield being able to destroy the runway, the hangers, fuel deposes ect ect
2 Likes
Some of us don’t like PvP but like the plane, here’s waiting for a mode like this: DCS inspired PvE mode for air battles
Maybe, but you don’t offer an alternative that we could comment on or think through. I actually offered 4 alternate options of different complexities, but they also get lost in a sea of 1-2 line posts.
I can’t say that I like the few big maps in RB. Even more time in transit for basically the same action. And when you are out, you are out. Wouldn’t be my choice. And just putting more varied targets on the map wouldn’t change things, as long as bases deliver the best reward to the fastest BLU striker.
1 Like
Well. Maybe I wanted to see you guys agree that ‘Removing napalm itself cannot be a solution but makes things worse’ or not.
But damn… Thanks to the current situation of rotten ARB, which was overdue long ago.
It seems my small brain can’t offer other options for
‘How can we fix this problem without removing napalm as a makeshift idea’.
Things are just FUBAR and only hatred between each other is left.
:(
The issue with size is less distance and more mission design.
Compare these two:
Both maps are 128x128 km with 16x16 gridsquares.
Vietnam in Air RB:
Smolensk in Air sim:
Do you see the difference?
Objectives.
Smolensk feels far larger with far less player density over vietnam despite being effectively the same map because…
On Vietnam, the greatest distance between 2 minibases is ~20 km (1 grid square)
On Smolensk, greatest distance between 2 mini bases on red is ~48 km. (3 grid squares, but slightly diagonal)
Greatest distance for 2 blue mini bases is sqrt((5x16)^2+(3*16)^2) = 93 km.
This alone makes the bombers spread out and thus spreads out people hunting the bombers, thus spreads out the people hunting the bomber hunters, thus less player density.
Beyond the mini bases, on Smolensk we just had an “Capture an A point” on B5, while red team had a bomber intercept on the D row (by the time I took the screenshot, the bombers were about to escape at D7, but even when they were on D5 it’s at least 16 to 32 km distance between people intercepting and people brawling for the capture).
There’s also ground targets to bomb at B4 and C5, this time being quite close together so not that big of a split.
Even on 64x64 (Ruhr) maps where a gridsquare is only 8x8 km, we get far greater distances between objectives:
Ignore the convoy objectives as nobody in a WW2 plane or even early-modern jet without guided munitions can kill them safely.
This is what I mean when I mean wanting bigger maps for air RB.
Bigger map as in: wider, more spread out.
And I’m pretty confident, at least amongst pre-BVR players, others mean the same but without the experience with other game modes to precisely define the issue.
Current air RB maps are narrow columns 16-48 km wide in a 16-32 km tall box where all 16v16 players funnel into in a chain reaction of base bombers/ground pounders, people wanting easy kills going after them and so forth. Having only 1 airfield excarbarates this funneling issue as people just fly straight at the enemy airfield even if they ignore the groundpounders.
The map itself is big. But like ~50 km on either side might as well not exist as nobody has any reason to go there.
3 Likes
I say no but drastically nerf it against bases just like rockets to deter fighter base bombing
as before…
It isn’t the size, it is the effect. On arcade maps, attackers and bombers have good reasons to bomb various targets. Despite the map being very small.
Both are easily programmable options.
Maybe because there is an in-air reload of ordnances in AAB?
In ARB, it is one of the main reasons why the Strategical bomber is more heavily ineffectual than the attacker counterpart.
4 manned squadron of Lancaster in full downtier match can take less tickets than single Wyvern at same match in full uptier status.
Even if Lancasters throw their best efforts on killing ground targets.
Worse flight characteristics are not only a disadvantage on Base runs but also a disadvantage on land-and-refuel procure for second run.
You have as many bombs as you want and often an airfield that can end the game. You also have ground targets that seriously contribute to ticket bleed. Bombs matter for the win.
Bombers can climb much faster in AB too.
I would’ve stuck at AAB if there was
- no domination/AirDorm modes when I want to play bomber solely
- no spawnkiller 109F(USAAF) or Ki-44 harrasing our spawn.
I quitted playing AAB after I got halifax due to those problems.
Anyway,
Maybe it might be true that AAB fits better than ARB for bombing.
But in meantime, AAB solutions might need to get modified before being added to ARB.
Still, sounds better than ‘just remove napalm’ though.
and should have been done ages ago. Fighters need to be taxed on base bombing so that they actually do their job
why are you so eager to screw over F-4’s? or maybe they could get fighter-bomber designation and be exempt from nerfs.
If the plane carried napalm IRL, then it should carry it ingame.
2 Likes
an F4 is a strike fighter, not a fully fledged fighter.
so fighter-bomber designation ingame then?
Absolutely, it genuinely confuses me why some of the best fighters (especially mig-21 and F104 taf) for their respective BRs are able to carry enough napalm to bomb a base, not only does it incentivise zombing in br ranges where you actually need fighters to win matches (11.0-12.7) and also completely reduces bombers and attackers role in the match.
Premium fighters just shouldn’t be able to base bomb, whether this is enforced through the removal of bombs or a heavy penalty on rewards for bombing, either way I believe it should be a thing of the past because there are already a lot of premiums at the higher brs, it doesn’t help in the slightest that half of them are racing towards (and typically TKing eachother or dying before even raching) a base
2 Likes