You are totally OT by now imho.
They’re fine, but none of them are nearly competitive. AV-8C is heavily outclassed by the Hunter F.58, T-2 and Ayit.
F3H-2 is imo a one-trick pony that can’t really do much more than snipe unaware players from 5 miles out in headons.
F-104 was competitive when it was still the fastest plane at its BR
F-100D is good, but still heavily outclassed by things like Mig-21
A-10A is very good, but only because players are dumb enough to try dogfight it.
It’s hard to be competitive when everyone else can control whether they engage you or not, with absolutetly no say on your part.
That’s a very passive way of playing though. Competitive jets tend to be the ones that people actually fear.
Yeah, if Gajin put atleast half as much effort into applying the Harrier bug reports as they put into trailers, it could very well be one of Warthunder’s best planes.
Rather than a timer make it an SP system like ground RB. Instead of waiting 5 minutes the fighter actually has to earn points through activity, enough to be able to land and rearm with a bomb load.
You’re trying to complicate something that’s very simple. T-2 flies better than the Harrier, end of story.
Whether a plane is a strike aircraft or not doesn’t matter in ARB. All that matters is their A2A performance, because > We’re discussing ARB <
If we scale the SP cost, it sounds like a good idea.
Reason I’d say we need to scale it is because sometimes it becomes a massive stomp and you don’t get much of an opportunity, but the final person refuses to engage and just run constantly. One example would be someone in say a starfighter around early supersonics/late subsonics.
I guess the russia suffers because they have all these horrible dogfighters
Buff russia when, they have planes that are easy to dunk on in a dogfight.
@Surbaissemaxxing
Sorry for pinging, but I think we need your assistant to stay in the topic.
‘Do we need to consider removing napalm from fighters if we think about strike aircraft and bomber?’
We also had some sidewalks and derailing, but things are now going to out of control after @Pangolin_Fan showed up.
now we are arguing about
‘A2G capability is not important but A2A only matters when discussing about ARB’
and
‘is T-2 overpowered or not’ (the same discussion which you had dealt with in Feb 20)
(He is OP of that one)
I’m not sure what you mean exactly when you say scale. The idea is that (restricted to fighters) they’d need to earn SP through activity in battle, whether it’s by shooting down enemy players, enemy ai ground or air, assists etc.
Generally speaking it’s designed to put a barrier between fighters and their bomb loads as if to say: “Sure, you can run bombs, but you need to do work as a fighter first”.
I also think it’s too restrictive to fighters, generally speaking I think this is an issue of gaijin being unable to effectively balance bombers and strike aircraft in a way that makes them enjoyable in ARB. This partly results in atypical playstyles as people look to grind out the air tech tree.
I cleared (or so I think, unless forum’s auto remove did something wrong) most of the off-topic stuff.
If something got deleted that was on topic (due to auto remove), then please do let me know
1 Like
Thank you so much. as always.
Cost is high at start, halves at 5 minutes, halves again at 10 minutes and becomes zero at 15.
Reasoning is - last plane is hiding, so you RTB to grab ground-pound ordnance to win through tickets.
1 Like
Well, I am kinda like your Idea.
seems fair to both Strikers and Fighters who want to bomb.
Jusst worrying a bit about ‘fighters who just bought and suffer with stock modification’ which will be collateral damage though. :|
Does adding ‘amount of tickets decreasing by destroyed base’ increase over time, will damage your idea?
Currently, base gives the slightest amount of ticket decreasing compared to how many ordinances is required to destroy it.
So, base bombing is not an effective way to contribute to victory.
I think it would be cool if base destruction also providing a decrease in the ‘fair’ amount of ticket, which is more rewarding than now too.
I’m cool with base bombing getting better tickets. I enjoy objective oriented gameplay more than TDM, even if I solely fly fighters with rare exceptions.
In my thinking though, it was less “bombs for bases” for fighters (although napalm is only good vs bases, oddly enough. No deep fried tank crews and pillboxes), and more “bombs to attack the medium tank convoys and pillboxes.”
Best imo would be airfield bombing being viable outside of early WW2 brackets. Viable as in possible at all. It’d need serious balancing though due to speed and ordnance (maybe 12 bases rather than 3, and maybe sim style airfield modules (with significantly less HP) rather than blind dropping).
3 Likes
I like to see every single idea about which will make bomber and attacker contribute victory more than
‘just dump bombs to the base which grants a minimal amount of tickets’. XD
But in the meantime, dedicated TDM enjoying fighter mains will be mad at Gaijin if we reintroduce the airfield bombing.
I mean… Some of them which has bad behaviors want Attacker/bomber to be ‘easier preys which only need to show up at the enemy side, or some challenging bots’ and ‘PvE noobs shouldn’t disrupt our way to victory.’
2 Likes
Personally, I don’t think damagable airfields are a good idea, especially at higher BRs.
I think the simpliest solution is to base stealing is to increase how many bases there are, and also add the period tank battlefield things (the ones that spawn in Heli PVE and BVR sized vietnam) to all battles rank 5 or 6+. This would solve the issue of base stealing, aswell as give more targets to strike aircraft.
They need to add more napalmable things to target.
1 Like
Yes, infantry. We need the ability to napalm large groups of infantry.
1 Like
While I am skeptical of removing napalm munitions from fighters, agreed that players who use competent fighters as B-17s in the ARB need to be discouraged from doing so.
Bringing those up again. Keep in mind, the simpler it can be implemented, the more likely it can happen. Suggestion 1 would make bases available for attackers again and force fighters to share if needed. It would require the change of two numbers in the code.
If we just add more bases so everyone can destroy at least one ?
1 Like