I’m honestly not sure, if this is still an issue, I haven’t had to deal with such problems during the last run
Ahhh I see, for that case I withdraw my statement
A more uneven front would be better, like in certain sim maps. Spreading out objectives. I’m not sure what place this is modeled after, Vietnam right? Is this some strategically important location?
2 Likes
Its set in south america but I don’t believe it’s modelled after any real location.
But yes, having everything more spread out would make it waaay better.
2 Likes
We have a Vietnam map in the game and it looks nothing like the NT one
I hate when they do this… Real strategic locations have always been more fun to play in like Dover strait, Berlin, ect. Makes it feel a bit more authentic than the generic maps.
2 Likes
Real life locations have that problem of, well, being real life locations
You can’t do much to customize real life locations to make them fit the gameplay you are going for
They are cool for special scenario modes that are balanced according to the map design and for generic gameplay, but not for something like the current iteration of NT
There are a lot of maps that are entirely made to recreate real life battles, but currently they almost never appear in the matchmaker because they really don’t work with modern day WT gameplay
Yes, I agree a real life location would be much cooler, but I think the politics of it, especially when nukes are involved, was something Gaijin wanted to stay away from.
Hopefully they change their minds in the future when the mode is more normalized.
1 Like
I don’t see how it couldn’t work. The balance currently is just: Don’t space climb. you couldn’t do that on most maps anyways unless they screw up AA placement.
Also in a post before they have talked about putting Nuclear Thunder into existing maps.
War is inherently political, but that shouldn’t bar you from making cool scenarios. Even if you are American, are you really going to freak out that New York City can get bombed in a fictional game? I think it’d be cool if I got to defend my nation’s capitol or any scenario of the sorts.
Stalingrad, Berlin, and more recently Falklands which are currently under contest, are in the game.
9.7 t2 has 2 less aim9p than f1 you mentioned yet it doesnt obliterate entire lower bracket.
It wouldnt. At least because more nations would have access to capable stuff. Not like a10a vs su17m4 or su25bm. Or mig25 vs eh nothing? Or supersonics limited to rear aspect garbage while other supersonics can have all aspect missiles.
Gaijin plays it VERY safe when it comes to real life stuff. They turned off chat for around a year when a certain conflict broke out in Europe.
1 Like
Real life locations are inherently asymmetrical, that’s the problem. Until you figure out a good way to balance the mode it is better to use a fictional location that you can mold to fit your needs.
Once they figured out everything out they can use real life locations for NT and spread things out as needed to make it as realistic as possible, while keeping it balanced.
I’d like to see an even bigger map featuring all of Vietnam, and another featuring all of Korea.
I’d like to see Taiwan + the straight and a slice of mainland China too, another featuring the Persian Gulf, and of course that one country in Europe, but I think these might all be too spicy for Gaijin.
ESPECIALLY that last one.
A good real life location not linked to any major events though would be the Bering Strait. That would be pretty cool imo.
2 Likes
Yeah, and I hope they’ll stop that and continue to do more like: Falklands.
I already advocated for more asymmetrical fronts in my previous reply, but if you disagree that’s fine. Asymmetry doesn’t necessarily mean unbalanced imo.
This would be a bit big wouldn’t it? A Korean war map would be splendid though. Fighting from behind Seoul to Pyongyang would be incredible.
And BK-90
Hello guys
We’ve been following your discussions specifically around the M163 and Shilka, so we want to clarify a few important points here.
We don’t want to weaken the air defense significantly at this rank further, as the request to remove the ability to intercept guided munitions will, in our opinion, make the gameplay more boring and remove the part that requires a little effort that we have now to have some form of difficulty.
There’s currently some ambiguity about the M163 and Shilka being able to intercept ammunition, but it’s technically possible. You can try it yourself, for example, in the training grounds or in GRB, where players sometimes even shoot down rockets with their machine guns. If this ambiguity is critical to immersion, then the only solution is to have more modern anti-aircraft guns in the convoys, which in turn will make Vietnam look like the 1980s.
Currently, the M163 and Shilka have a reaction time of 2 seconds, and they begin engaging missile-type targets at a range of 3,000 meters. Launching missiles at a range of 3,500-2,500 meters increases the likelihood of one of the rounds hitting the target, but this requires at least some effort on the player’s part. These figures do not take into account the time it takes to aim and open fire, and do not take into account that the ammunition is usually not hit by the first projectile in the burst, so the time to intercept the second bomb or missile is usually even less.
3 Likes
Considering how effective distraction tactics are on AA, there should be a wild weasel medal reward when an AA is destroyed by someone else while it is targeting you.
2 Likes
So what do I do in the Viggen? I have 3 Mavericks and 1 CM pod, if you add two shilkas I’m dead with only 1 kill maybe
4 Likes
Replace 2 agm65 with 2 rb05a or 1 if you are attacking bot tank outpost
I’m definitely not opposed to more realistic maps, but I think for basic gamemodes like ARB and GRB, fictional locations are much better suited. Top tier ARB would be way more enjoyable, if there were maps with actual terrain, for example lol
I would especially love to see scenario maps get overhauled and brought back as events or a special queue. Stuff like Attack on Wake Island or Battle of Britain (there’s also a Norway attack map, but I don’t remember its name) could be really fun, but they need balance to make sure both sides have a solid chance to win.
Asymmetry is fine when you can make sure that both sides have advantages AND disadvantages
If you look at a lot of GRB maps, it is easy to tell what happens when you go for asymmetry, but don’t factor in what the asymmetry could end up doing to the winning chances of each side.
2 Likes