They should reformulate simulation battles

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
1

The way simulation battles are delivered to the player should be reformulated, allowing for larger Maps, with different Missions, Air Refueling at a set value to call it on the map and make it available as a mission to the enemy to shoot down the enemy air refueling plane, Mark important targets or Objectives on the Map for your squadron mates or all allies to see; (being able to edit, as an example in the game SQUAD and its map…), further reduce the enemy team’s score, since shooting down enemy aircraft, speaking now in real life, would be crucial to maintain air control of a certain conflict zone, not to mention the costs of losing an aircraft as it costs millions, that is, what is the point of maintaining air superiority, shooting down 30/40/50 enemies if in the end whoever grounds or drops bombs on airports, or destroys aircraft carriers will win the match? And since we’re on the subject of aircraft carriers, there should be a convoy protecting them, since an aircraft carrier NEVER moves alone, not to mention that currently, depending on the map and the side you’re playing on, the aircraft carrier never defends itself, making it an EASY target. And as an air control mission in zone “A” the objective should be “Defend” or “Attack”, randomly generated for the teams involved, and the team could either attack and capture the winning zone or, if they don’t capture it, the opposing team wins by defense. Reducing takeoff costs or increasing the profits from simulation matches is unfeasible today for anyone who plays simulation, especially at a high tier, to keep playing if you don’t have a high performance or a premium account or a premium aircraft, or both. I see many players playing with standard aircraft and when they end up dying a few times, they tend to have more losses than profits and give up the match, unbalancing the teams, either we have more profits or we have a decrease in the cost of using the aircraft. There are many things to do in the simulation or other modes and I believe that the community that plays always expects the best for War Thunder.

Deveria ser reformulado a forma que a disposição de batalhas de simulação são entregues ao jogador, possibilitando ter Mapas maiores, com Missões diferentes, Reabastecimento aéreo a um valor determinado para convoca-lo no mapa e disponibilizar como missão ao inimigo de abater o avião de reabastecimento aéreo inimigo, Marcar alvos ou Objetivos importantes no Mapa para seus companheiros de esquadrão ou todos os aliados poder ver ; (podendo editar, como exemplo no jogo SQUAD e seu mapa…), diminuir mais a pontuação do time inimigo, visto que abater aeronaves inimigas falando agora de vida real, seria crucial para manter o controle aéreo de uma determinada zona de conflito, fora os custos por perda de uma aeronave por custar milhões, ou seja, oque adianta manter a superioridade aérea, abater 30/40/50 inimigos se no fim quem faz ground ou fica jogando bomba em aeroporto, ou destruindo porta aviões que vai ganhar a partida? E já que tocamos no assunto do porta aviões, deveria ter um comboio protegendo o mesmo, visto que um porta aviões NUNCA anda sozinho, sem contar que atualmente a depender do mapa e lado que jogar, o porta aviões nunca se defende o tornando um alvo FACIL. E como missão de controle aéreo na zona “A” deveria ter como objetivo, “Defenda” ou “Ataque” gerado aleatoriamente para os times envolvidos, podendo ser quem ataca e captura a zona vencedora ou caso não capture, a equipe oposta vença por defesa. Diminuir os custos de decolagem ou aumentar os ganhos de partida de simulação, é inviável hoje quem joga simulação ainda mais em alto tier, manter o jogo se você não tiver um alto desempenho ou conta premium ou avião premium ou ambos, eu vejo muitos jogadores, jogando com aeronaves de linha e quando acabam morrendo algumas vezes, tendem a ter mais prejuízos do que lucros e desistem da partida desequilibrando os times, ou tenhamos mais lucros, ou tenhamos diminuição no custo de utilização das aeronaves. Há muitas coisas a se fazer na simulação ou outros modos e acredito que a comunidade que joga espera o melhor sempre para War Thunder.

9 Likes
2

It indeed needs a revamp, but forcing players into defend X, attack Y is not very pleasant since not everyone is joining for air-to-air engagements,

Scouting specific airplanes like strategic bombers to attack enemy airfields, destroying ground targets to troops to attack islands with strategic points like in Denmark should improve and expand the experience in air simulator battles,

For ground huge and exclusive maps are needed, we had Tunisia 550 m × 550 m but it was remaked and this variation removed, a better Kursk map and more others.

6 Likes
3

I made this post above because in my point of view, the community that plays simulation games today is lacking in content and they don’t bring anything to us and only focus on tank battles or realistic plane battles.

4

It’s reliant on Gaijin finishing their AI overhaul.

2 Likes
5

Welp, prob gaijin need to do smth like PVE company in DCS, but with players on both sides

1 Like
6

Yeah this is important and what would be great to see next update

Also they could do something like supplies needed to buy ATG weaponry, and you have to defend the convoy from enemy ambush (AI) and enemy CAS (players)

1 Like
7

totally agree!

1 Like
8

I agree with the points mentioned, especially on the issue of the cost of taking off an airplane.

1 Like
9

I rather seen expansion of Simulator mode rather then just revamping of what is already there moving closer to something along lines of Enigma Cold War DCS server.

This was what people imagined WW mode would be when it was first revealed. Dynamic, PvP/PvE game mode that last days combining ground, air and sea. You might say it would be imbalanced and nobody would play ground. However if maps were big enough, good luck finding players or player controlled SPAA sitting in hiding. Besides the fact it would open ability to add long range SAM systems so being in a plane would become much harder. Plus ability to add AWACs as strategic objective.

1 Like
10

Every dev that could contribute something to sim is working on Aces of Thunder since years.
Play the mode as it is or move on.

Its a dead horse since years, so don´t expect anything new…

1 Like
11

Ground sim too. Right now it’s literally just GRB without 3rd person and HUD. BR based and you can’t even use a historical lineup if you want to- you’re not allowed to bring a lower BR vehicle. Just let me use my M41A1 alongside my M48A1 dammit.

1 Like
12
  1. This game focuses on PvP , not PvE, so don’t expect larger maps or interesting missions. It’s all about PvP battles.
  2. Some might argue that EC includes PvE tasks. While this is true, the PvE aspect feels like it was added just to tick the box for “We have PvE.” These tasks are random and lack of clear, coherent storyline.
  3. The primary motivation to keep playing this game comes from the grind to unlock new vehicles, rather than the gameplay itself.
  4. Sim mode is significantly less popular than RB.

Given these points, I wouldn’t expect much development effort to be directed toward improving sim EC.

1 Like
13

The air combat mode of WT is PVPVE, and AI is an important part of it. But increasing the proportion of PVE requires a significant increase in the combat capabilities of AI. This may not be a problem for experienced players, but it can be fatal for many players with less skill.

1 Like
14

For fighter planes missions - yes, AI needs to be improved. Though, in my opinion, even current capabilities are enough to create interesting and challenging missions.
For strike planes missions current AI capabilities are enough. Though, some improvement might help.
Especially for infantry.

It will be the same PvP.

15

1- It’s PVPVE.
1a- New AI is requires for new missions, and AI development takes years.
2- Refer to 1a.
3- For you.* For me and my friends we enjoy the vehicles.

16
  1. The only real challenge in the “E” part is an enemy player who will prevent you from completing the “E” objective. This isn’t true PvE but rather a checkbox to say “We have PvE.”

1a. Even with the current capabilities of the CDK, it’s entirely possible to create engaging missions, especially for assault planes.

  1. What makes missions interesting is more about the scenario design, not the AI’s performance.

  2. When a new vehicle is released, player activity online initially spikes but then declines. While there are players who genuinely enjoy the gameplay, the overall trend suggests otherwise.

17

1a- AI aircraft cannot engage players outside prop BRs.
2- AI performance is scenario design.

18

Could you please give an example?

I would disagree.
Try to play this mission using Su-25SM3/Su-27 pair of planes.
AI performance is enough to make it challenging and no AI performance is required for assualt part of this mission.

19

War Thunder’s AI was designed for their previous game and slightly modified… and never updated since.
The AI have their own thrust, their own flight models, and can’t use weapon systems other than guns.
They were designed for props and 1st gen jets.

DCS had better AI 10 years ago.

20

Since last year AI planes can use Fox-2 missiles. Try to play that mission. You will face F-16C with AIM-9M.
Yes, I remember top jets could not fly (helis still cannot fly), but now they can.

The first part of this mission is to help Mig-29 in dogfight with F-16. It is challenging part if you play planes like Su-25 with no radar.

At the third part of this mission you will need to protect Su-25 from F-16C. But those F-16C can attack you as well. And they do it with AIM-9M too.