Ahhh thanks for the clarity and definition on that i have saw someone do that before and i just thought it was a dumb moron that couldnt fly haha yeah thats not cool but how would they counter that though
1 Like
exactly… what they’ve done is punish us all.
1 Like
No, it really is a strike fighter, as there’s no point in the carrier group if it can’t project power in some way. If the carrier exists to support fighters only and the fighters only exist to protect the carrier, what’s the point? You could save a s#it-ton of money by just not bothering at all.
Not sayings it’s a great strike fighter though… just that, in theory at least, it had to be a strike fighter to justify spending all that £ash.
No. The Fleet air arm of the Royal navy wanted to still be able to embark fixed wing aircraft but the MOD essentially said no after the retirement of HMS Ark Royal and her Phantom FG1s. The long standing argument was that the RAF would be able to provide protection for the fleet anywhere in the world and the RN didnt need to worry.
Of course the RN thought this was stupid and it took much arguing and fighting, to the point of knee-capping the FRS1 and openly dismissing it as a bad aircraft, but ultimately got the funding for it because there was 1 area the RAF couildnt provide reliable protection from which was Soviet Shadower aircraft. The FRS1 only official role was intercepting any electronic surveliance aircraft attempting to follow the fleet.
this naturally, proved false and all came to ahead in the Falklands where the RAF could not provide any defence for the fleet and the SHar was the first line of defence. The first and only time the FRS1 saw combat, they were mostly employed in providing CAP for the taskforce, not engaging ground targets, that was handled by the Harrier Gr3s embarked on-board the carriers once they arrived via Atlantic Conveyor.
The FRS1 was designed and built to be a naval interceptor not a ground attack aircraft and whilst it could perform in that role, it wasnt until the voyage down to the falklands that they were cleared to use bombs or rockets.
TLDR the RAF and MOD really hated the navy and made some pretty stupid decisions. If you want to learn more, read “Harrier 809” and “Sea Harrier Over the Falklands”
As for a more in-game poitn of view. Why arent the Phantom FGR2/FG1 also classed as strike aircraft? They were also employed in ground attack from a carrier. Also from an in-game point of view. The SHar is Britain ONLY fighter between the Hunter F6 at 9.7 and the Phantoms at 12.0. Whilst GRB is a tad different and the Phantoms are 10.7. If you want to run a 10.3 line-up which is rather viable, its the only option for a fighter. But due to the SP costs its either the FRS1 or the Jaguar GR1A or Buc S2B. If it was a naval fighter, the SP cost increases wouldnt be applied to it and therefore, you could spwan CAP and CAS in one match far more easily.
I even heard that the RAF and MOD hated the navy so much they gave them 34 rules the navy had to follow. if you want to learn more google “Navy Rule 34”
/jk
From my perspective I can earn more in GSB with TT A-10 Late during the 15min period, then with premium A-10 Early in ASB during the 15min period.
Question is if it is adequate, considering that EC is less “intensive” then the GSB.
The thing is, EC is filled with several minutes of planning and boredom interrupted with moments of intensive combat - consequences of which mean SL and more minutes of boredom and planning to get back to where you were.
The reward vs risk (especially in certain BRs and Vehicles) doesn’t reflect the other modes. Basically you have to really love flying sim to play sim, if your goal is fast grinding, other modes suit you better. The only exception to that is mindless grinding which is reportedly why we can’t have good rewards anymore (even though said reduction in rewards has only led to a worse ratio to zomber to fighters).
2 Likes
It is not about you have to fly somewhere, it is about that the EC servers are bad. And I mean really BAD.
They are actually worse then what we have had nearly two decades ago in IL2. And because they are bad they are scarcely populated, which allows along with the custom rooms allows almost undisturbed farming of AI targets. As result we have crippled economy and lack of targets if the server is populated.
Devs could choose different approach to low pop mission farming like scaling reward with number of active players on a server etc. but they choose to caps income nearly to that point when playing SIM is economically nearly unfeasible, thus driving SIM player numbers even lower.
If it were up to me, I would:
- Remove income from the custom missions
- Implement different anti farming mechanics (like reward scaling)
- Increase rewards to at least GSB levels
- Create new missions:
Missions which would be immersive, with plenty of targets for any class of the AC, targets which would be meaningful to defend like forward airfields, advancing armored columns which can capture those forward airfields. Such columns could be:
- Destroyed by friendly counter advancing forces or defensive positions (job for fighters to cover those)
- Destroyed by attackers (job for attackers or bombers)
- Delayed by destroying bridges, fuel depots etc. (job for bombers)
Full Carrier group missions: Two task forces compound of carrier, battleship and escorts fighting each other. Protect own ships, destroy enemy. For carrier based aircraft’s only.
There are plenty of scenarios form BOB, Kursk, Husky, Overlord to cold war/alternative history which could be easily implemented and would bring tons of players. Because who actually like those lifeless maps we have now ?
5 Likes
Obviously they need to uncap the useful actions but i wonder if just giving say 5 or 10 k SL for continuous flight would help cut down on zobbers and might even help with the player count because new players wouldn’t have to worry about losing SL for crashing at low br or being shot down after not seeing anyone for 20 mins lmao or running out of fuel lmao bless their hearts also it would help guys like me that are not good at pvp dogfights and i run outta money and have to go do other game modes
All this kvetching about zombers, when most PVErs outside of event times are just guys trying to grind their strikers and bombers without having to also grind out ground lineups for GRB or being helpless and useless RP pinatas for enemy fighters in ARB/AAB. A rework of ARB, or just introduction of enduring confrontation into realistic, would siphon the majority of honest PVErs out of sim in a heartbeat so you l33t PVPers could beat each other bloody to your hearts content.
People playing the objective are fine.
People demanding not to be intercepted (in other words: Demanding the enemy team NOT to play the objective) are not fine.
People J-ing out or crashing to deny kills.
Zombers also refuse to engage in basic teamwork and communication (“B25 at Attention to Gridsquare X, are you friend or foe?” Repeat until down to 800 meters and yup, the guy flying a b-25 away from the yellow flashing airfield while there’s enemy b25s around is a friend, so when intercepting the next b25 you need to make sure you get the blue marker as you dont want a teamkill and then get shot up as they know for fact you’re enemy at 1 km out.)
If you communicate and don’t demand PvE and don’t deny kills - it’s not your shirt, don’t wear it.
You didn’t read my post mate. What you describe is zomber behaviour, when once again, outside of event times most PVErs are not zombers. A lot of posts above are about people wanting significant nerfs to PVE rewards and increased difficulty out of spite without even trying to understand why there’s so many people coming to PVE in sim in the first place, and I was respoding to them.
Zombers are a different matter entirely, and one that won’t be solved unless chinese servers are started up again and region locks enforced (neither of which will happen).
1 Like