Okay, let’s look at an A10, it doesn’t matter which one.
Climb to 9000 meters? No way. By the time I get there, the game will be over.
I should stick to low targets. Mirage F1C 2000, Mig23 MLD, etc. will eat me for breakfast, because the game can’t show a normal BR system.
Let’s go up to 9000, say Su-22 M4 WTD61. I have 2 missiles that launch from 6-6,7-7 km instead of 13 km. What should I do? Ask the air defense of the airport to wait until I can fire them?
But let’s just have a ground convoy, or an AI battle. I have 2 whiny missiles (su22) down there and 4-5 air defenses waiting.
And that’s not the problem, it’s that I shoot down the 4 anti-aircraft, I get 80 points for it. In an AI battle, a convoy, an airport, the only thing that can kill you is the anti-aircraft, and I get the least points for that.
What the hell are you talking about? No one cares about sim since years.
A10s are practically immune to missiles, even at 11.7.
The only chance a Mig23 has is to b&z it with its shitty guns without eating a 9L or getting shot from the side.
Btw. this is 128375683th “make sim better” thread and it will be ignored like the 128375682 before.
There is a legitmate issue though, even with this.
Some bases are very close to the enemy AFs, they were close enough to be fired at by Rolands, they are definetly close enough to be fired at by the ITOs. Lofting has limited implementation and not an option for all and its not always easy to hit a target whilst keeping below terrain. Denmark is notorious for this, with bases sandwhich between 4 different AFs, so you have to fly a Gauntlet. I can do it, but only in a Tonka with a good RWR and good low speed handling.
Convoys (ground) have very very potent SPAAGs that forces anyone that doesnt have mutliple stand-off weapons to actively avoid. Ive tried bombing them before in something like the Buc S2, never got close.
Battlefields arent too bad, but again, unless you can clear out the SPAAs first, you arent going to be attacking them in a lot of aircraft unless you are really really careful.
Attacking naval targets requires the right tactics and quite a bit of care, easy in a decent performance jet, but I cant even imagine how you would do it in a Prop trying to line up a Torpedo. Carriers are usually a waste of time to attack unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing and pray. (Im glad ive now got ASMs)
Enemy aircraft is fine if you are in a fighter or multirole, but kinda useless in something pure A2G.
SPAA does need refinement and work. Im hoping that a part of this will come with the introduction of ARM early next year, maybe finally they’ll overhaul the AI side of things at the same time (probably copium) but there are a number of fundemental issues that do need to be addressed
I understand your points, but there are several aspects worth considering:
Map design and placement: Some bases are positioned far too close to enemy airfields, which artificially amplifies the effect of air defenses. This is more of a map design flaw than a balance issue.
SPAAG accuracy: AI air defenses are unrealistically precise. Adding reaction time differences or occasional misses would make attacks far more engaging.
Reward imbalance: Shooting down air defenses gives very few points, even though they are the main obstacle. Rewards should reflect the actual risk.
Lack of tactical diversity: Not every aircraft has stand‑off weapons, and those without them are practically useless against certain objectives. This narrows gameplay variety.
AI battles and convoys: In these scenarios, SPAAGs dominate, making bombers or strike aircraft ineffective. That undermines one of the core roles of the mode.
Naval targets: Torpedo attacks in props are nearly impossible, which excludes a whole category of aircraft from meaningful participation.
BR system issues: Current BR matchmaking often pits aircraft against opponents they cannot realistically handle, worsening the experience.
Player motivation: When every attempt feels pointless—low rewards, high costs, no chance of success—players are more likely to quit, which hurts the mode long‑term.
Developer responsibility: Without regular balance checks, problems accumulate. Ignoring them signals that simulator is not a priority, which erodes trust.
ARM limitations: While ARMs may help, they won’t fix reward or AI balance problems. Those need separate solutions.
Community feedback ignored: The fact that the same issues are raised repeatedly without change shows that player input isn’t being taken seriously, which damages the community.
Gameplay experience distortion: Players fail not because of skill gaps but because of overtuned AI. That creates frustration rather than challenge.
Learning curve cut off: New players can’t even practice strike gameplay because they’re instantly destroyed by SPAAGs. This prevents the mode from attracting fresh players.
Teamwork discouraged: Overpowered air defenses don’t encourage cooperation; they push players to avoid objectives altogether.
Historical authenticity: Real air defenses weren’t flawless. Making them less robotic would improve immersion and realism.
I wish you good luck in writing down all this stuff that no one reads up there.
We did this for years. Really.
Complaining, making suggestions, collecting ideas for improvements, ect., ect.
And even the smallest low effort changes were completely ignored over and over. And don’t even dare to ask for something like a new map.
Sorry for destroying your hopes and puffy fluffy illusions,
but SIM was left to rot years ago…
I agree that the convoy AA is way too accurate (both ground and ships), AI bots in some maps are impossible to catch and ground units give a ridiculously low amount of points). SPAA in ground battles only become a problem above 9.0.
I haven’t played above 12.0, but I really can’t think of many examples where planes can’t handle other planes of the same BR, though. There are undertiered planes like the Sea Vixen, the premium Sea Hawk with AIM-9Bs or the T-2 with its PD radar at 9.7, but the difference isn’t that decisive.
Simply they do not want to fix this issue. Remember last Q&A, you are idiot and still playing game. People want to have bots AI to be same as BR of the match. So you got it, they just made it copy/paste textures and change the parameters by hitting a keyboard with a head. People wants AA to be exactly same as BR, so do not complain about how strong it is. It is good it ends this poor “Airfield bombers” farming like zombies. It takes too long for all the crying and still have not any “reasonable” changes and they will not do anything with that. They are not testing balance on Sim battles because it is not Gaijin priority. They focus on stupid small battles full of mayhem, because of community they have. Wants to play real sim, play real sim game. They dont give a shit of sim players because sim players are not worth of investing. The only way to fix the issue is to rebuild Sim Battles, but it is not a priority because of small number of players. Sim battles need bigger maps Denmark is too small for top tier jets. Sim battles needs reworked reward system. Sim battles should have more combined operations, Delete this stupid “BASES”, airfield bombing. Unfortunately they do not want players to attack ground bots, because it is too easy for YOU to earn money and bubbles. Sim battles are unplayable at some BRs that is true. A lot of bombers flying around, like zombies, so it is sometimes hard to have a single dogfight at lower BRs. At higher BRs you fight against zombies with a FFARs and stright bombing airfield what annoy you more or at top tier you just cannot take off because you can shoot planes from airfield to airfield or any shithole. I think Radars should be nerfed because of the map sizes. In summary sim battles in WT probably never be fixed to be playable and enjoyable, because of the community and that is true so I think the best to do is to play something different if you cry that much about “game” that is not like you want it. For years people trying to help and fix sim battles and what are the changes since 2023? AI Bots with higher BR and one big map extra for top tiers?
Nobody is crying about the game — I simply wrote down my opinion.
As for the rest:
AI air defense: The issue isn’t that it’s strong, but that it’s unrealistically accurate and gives disproportionate rewards. That’s not a challenge, it’s frustration, because players fail due to overtuned AI rather than their own mistakes.
Map design: Bases placed too close to enemy airfields are a design flaw, not a player error. This artificially amplifies air defense and limits tactical options.
Reward system: Getting the lowest rewards for destroying the most dangerous targets makes no sense. Rewards should scale with risk, otherwise motivation disappears.
Gameplay diversity: Not every aircraft has stand‑off weapons. If those without them are completely useless, it excludes a large part of the roster and narrows gameplay variety.
Simulator priority: The fact that developers don’t test balance in Sim battles shows the mode is sidelined. Long‑term, this leads to the community falling apart.
Community feedback: Players have been pointing out the same problems for years, yet nothing changes. That shows feedback isn’t taken seriously, which erodes trust.
Learning curve: New players can’t even practice strike gameplay because SPAAGs instantly destroy them. That prevents the mode from attracting fresh players.
Teamwork discouraged: Overpowered air defenses don’t encourage cooperation. They push players to avoid objectives instead of working together.
Historical authenticity: Real air defenses weren’t flawless. Making them less robotic would improve immersion and realism.
Motivational spiral: Excessive punishment (low points, high costs, no chance of success) makes players quit, which kills the Sim community over time.
Developer responsibility: Ignoring these issues signals that Sim is not a priority. That further weakens player trust.
ARM limitations: ARMs might help, but they won’t fix reward or AI balance problems. Those need separate solutions.
Community erosion: If players constantly feel their opinions don’t matter, they’ll eventually leave. That’s not the community’s fault, it’s the developers’.
Interesting that you immediately assume spawnkilling intentions, when the point is something entirely different. Being near the enemy airfield doesn’t automatically mean someone wants to shoot planes on the runway. If map design places objectives too close to the airfield, players have no choice but to go there.
And the “just fly high and dive” advice is pretty empty, because the AI air defense is unrealistically accurate. No matter what altitude you approach from, they’ll still shred you. That’s not a tactical mistake, it’s a balance problem.
So before labeling others as spawnkillers, it would be better to understand that the criticism isn’t aimed at players, but at a poorly designed system. But of course, everyone judges based on their own mindset, right?