Squadron Vehicles: F-117A Nighthawk and Stealth Technology!

[Apollo_1641]

@Panter2005

Make base bombing have a bigger impact on the battle. Add other targets to bomb than just a “base”.

Make bombing an interesting and nuanced part of gameplay, instead of a braindead way to grind that doesn’t have any impact on the battle.

100%

Air RB is pure team deathmatch where bombers are RP/SL pinjatas and can’t meaningfully contribute to the battle. This has to change

[ZE4L0T]

Nah, I like my pinatas. My SAAB-105OE specializes in bombers. It would only exacerbate the bomber issue.

[Apollo_1641]

I mean, the ÖE is an attacker which happens to also work in PvP versus other planes

That’s lucky, I guess

[Dpek1]

This would also give a use for ap anti ship bombs

[Dpek1]

People still need some way to grind it

And from what ive heared it will have stock unguided bombs

Without any countermesures
At 10.0

[Panter2005]

@Necronomica

It doesn’t “fight” the F-117, it can end up in the same match, sure, but what is the F-117 going to do?
The Mig15 is going to slaughter the F-117 in every engagement they have. The F-117 doesn’t have ANY offensive weaponry, it only has two bombs, that’s it, that is the only armament it has.

Semantics. Replace fight with meet, it doesn’t really matter.

@Necronomica

Either you want theoretical matchups in some cases (like now) or you don’t. You have to choose either of the two.

It’s not a black and white, 0 or 1 matter. It’s not the kind of thinking you should adopt. It’s about a healthy ratio of realism and balance.

F-117 at 8.7 is nowhere near the sweet spot.

@Necronomica

So then there are MANY planes that would never come to the game

Yes there are many vehicles in general that shouldn’t be here.

A prime example being modern artillery such as M109 or Vidar. We already have artillery as a call-in strike. They simply don’t fit the game the same way there is no place here for transport or recon planes.

Currently there is really no place for bombers and CAS in air battles either, but the difference is that there should be a place for them.

@Necronomica

or you would have to accommodate so many different types of planes that the game mode would be a jumbled mess

Right now the game mode accommodates one type of plane. I think making space for 2 more (CAS, bombers) is very much achievable. Recon planes may be hard, they would only make sense in sim maybe. Things like playable AWACS wouldn’t work.

@Necronomica

That… that is what you started with though?

This just further proves that you think in binary and can’t comprehend shades of gray.

@Necronomica

Here:

@Panter2005

Realistic matchmaking is based around entry into service. There’s a reason why and you know why it’s the most sensible approach.

Once again, the “most sensible approach” part doesn’t mean that realistic MM is the most sensible approach to MM. It means that service entry is the most sensible approach to realism in the context of MM.

It means that, if I say realistic when talking about MM, I mean similar in terms of service entry. I also added a caveat that it’s different when given planes were widely used in the same conflict.

[Dpek1]

This already happens with trainers/light attack planes

That ship has already sailed

[Panter2005]

Common sense dictates that 1st gen jets shouldn’t be able to see stealth planes. Pun intended.

[Panter2005]

@Dpek1

That ship has already sailed

And I want to it to sail back to port.

[Ion_492]

That’s changed, 6v6 matches are quite rare at the moment.

I do agree that it won’t be good for American teams.

[Thenighthunter]

I hate to break the news to you but stealth has been being experimented all the way back to the 40s.

[Apollo_1641]

If you’re referring to the Ho-229, then I regret to inform you that’s a myth

Stealthy?

That said, I’m not at all invested in this argument, just wanted to counter a common misconception

[Thenighthunter]

The YB-49

Northrop YB-49

[Panter2005]

And I like pancakes, but I don’t see how either of these statements contribute anything to the discussion.

[Apollo_1641]

Stealth was never the intention, it just happened to have a “lower RCS” and not by a meaningful amount I would guess, since the thing is propeller driven

[Qu_Rahn]

Are you guys planning on expanding a bit on how the inner workings of stealth mechanics are gonna be implemented in WT? I’d like to understand if all planes are going to use available RCS analysis, or if you’re going to throw the game’s 3d models on a RCS simulation software to get those values, or if it’s going to be a static value with a bit of vector math, or a simplified 3d mesh like VTOL does… anyhow, a blog post explaining your approach to it, like we had for other mechanics and graphics in the past.

[Apollo_1641]

Yeah 100%, it would reassure a lot of critics like me who doubt the accuracy of the F-117’s stealth as modeled on the dev server

[ZE4L0T]

For it to be “common sense,” doesn’t the sense have to be, well, common? There seems to be a lot of people who think it’s common sense that it should be at a BR where it doesn’t get massacred. Therefore, it’s not common sense.

[Thenighthunter]

Fair. Doesn’t change that there is nothing wrong with mig 15s shooting down 117s

[Apollo_1641]

I don’t have strong views either way about whether it’s OK for early cold war aircraft to shoot the stealth dorito down or not.

My angle on this is that it’s a missed opportunity for the F-117 to use it’s stealth ability, seeing as nobody has good radar guided weaponry at the tier

I’d like to see it buffed as much as possible and as such fit into a BR where RCS is relevant.