On the other side it just takes a single 20/23 mm AP-I bullet (no explosive charge) to rip off half the side/the whole wing of a fighter plane (especially J21 or Vampire).
Also: Why is the Tu-2S so damn fast? It should hava a top speed of 571 km/h but regularly exceeds that sustained, reaching 600-700 km/h which lets you struggle to close the distance even in an early jet plane.
bc AI controlled planes dont care about airframe limits
in sim you can see stuff like AI sabres going mach 1.3 for example
Wasn’t/Aren’t AI planes but players in AAB/Arcade (yes, I know…).
Darwin’s Hill is the most atrocious map ever added. People have long been asking for urban maps, yet you add a map that is nothing but bumps and bare terrain. This is a prime example of the company lacking map designers.
Disagree completely. I think it is an awesome map. I also disagree about Urban maps. I think we have too many already.
Regenerative steering is a must. If for no other reason than accuracy in the simulation. M1’s don’t have the option to turn it off.
I really wish Gaijin would stop catering to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, I’m glazing them and definitely not just stating a fact.
Saying that Sweden didn’t get anything is false. It doesn’t matter that the thing they got is in a bad spot thanks to BR compression.
I got it for the first time yesterday, high BR, and I REALLY like it. It is plenty big enough, with room and cover to move anywhere you want. I think it is the best map that they have added in years.
+1 to everything you said. Especially about urban maps. There are far too many urban maps currently.
No. And even if there are more “open maps”, they do NOT get chosen by the server more than the urban maps. Urban maps get picked at least 75% of the time. Some days urban maps are all I get.
I think you need to understand that Gaijin doesn’t make the game for you personally. Some players hate urban. Some love it. Some hate open terrain maps. Some love it. Some hate large maps, some love it. Etc. Your opinion is valid. For YOU. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to view the game the same way you do. Ergo, any new map is a good addition, because it adds diversity of gameplay. Just because some hate it does not mean there aren’t an equal number or more that love it.
Uh, no. However, I firmly believe teams only get camped if they are bad. Good teams cover all the flanks. Good teams don’t get rolled in less than five minutes so the enemy has nothing left to do BUT camp.
Most of the complaints in this game are just code for: “I’m bad at that and other people or good at it so I don’t like it.”
A way to incorporate ground forces into Nuclear Thunder would be so dope. If not then a vehicle focused version that includes better opportunities to use helicopters.
What would the ground players even do in Nuclear Escalation?
can SPPA get back to old, like last time, this is just unplayable, cant bomb cant dog fight… like common stop ruining everything.
Can somebody please even take a look at this bug report?
The tank was released with the bug despite having been reported during the Dev Server and it ruins it entirely…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Q0yqPNC5I1BI
Ooh, I like what you all did with the new matchmaking toggles!
And the presets page as well? Looking real nice!
Quick question though, and apologies if I just hadn’t noticed this before: Does this mark overpressure vs fragmentation pen damage?
A day later I still haven’t gotten it I really wanna play this map. I’m almost halfway through grinding the EMBT for context
French B26-C doesn’t get updated flight model, but American B26-B does?
same here
I don’t understand why nobody is pointing this out
How is camping behind rocks any different than camping behind corners of buildings?
City maps give better cover vs cas at all BRs which is a plus for everyone that prefers to play more ground oriented, Open maps allow for wider flanks and strenghten weakly armored light tanks and tanks with very high top speed.
The map pool is about 50-50. Theres so many city maps, even at top tier, which is ok imo. But theres very little that differs abandoned quarry or golden factory or shishkebab-43 or eastern european village where all caps are within 150 m from each other. It is fine, though, at least they arent exactly the same, but still…its 90° corners with buildings, on flat maps…I’m just sad that they seem to have mostly ditched the old approach of creating one very big map, which incorporates the possibility to have 3 smaller maps with different setups (possibly also for lower and higher BRs) like old sinai/second battle of el alamein which would then also give the possibility for one giant sim map.
As well as the possibility to have maps which have cqc areas and open areas all in one. The last i can remember is arctic (not for cqc areas but several maps on one), which are basically 2 smaller maps that are situated right next to each other, but theres for some reason no variant where you play in a setup with both of them connected. They could have so much more map setups and variations by Adding these big maps that can be subdivided into 3 smaller ones, but also opportunities for giant sim mode maps (or a very rarely occuring giant RB version which id love to have). Could even be optional: Like the slider for night battles/nuke thunder you could opt to also play ground RB on sim map setups…
Almost this whole image is a playable area in a basically never appearing sim setup (if it wasnt removed, i didnt see it for 1 or 2 years now):
But what you get is small eastern europe, where you can shoot at enemies in their spawn 5 seconds after match start and they still have spawn protection if they loaded in a bit late. all 3 caps are within 150 m from each other…in top tier…wtf…
The big open maps surely would be problematic in top tier because of cas and the snail for some reason having decided to remove all thick vegetation, turning forests with bushes into open areas as well and making it impossible to obstruct yourself from cas and long range standoff weapons inside them. Lately especially ir lock agms act insanely weird where they aquire locks to targets that are completely obstructed behind trees somehow (but fail to do so for targets sitting completely in the open). But if theyd rework that, and add better/more cover for tanks on the open maps thus making it less likely for long range agms to aquire locks and hit it might be bearable…and definitely more interesting and variable than the same, endless 1km² knifefights…
Or, even bigger maps, imagine where certain vehicles that act more as utility/scout/command vehicles could get the ability to build something comparable to a garrison(or radio in arma reforger) that then allows for 5 respawns (or 2 immediately and then 1 per minute or something) closer to the map center unless it gets destroyed…Just a wild idea to give utility to more vehicles and tone down time to drive and get to important areas…You could go on a reconnaisance/garrison mission in a squishy and rather bad armed command vehicle to establish a garrison and create opportunities for allies to spawn in low numbers somewhere else than the standard spawns…That would tone down spawncamping, give purpose to lots of vehicles that arent exactly meta, create another gamemode that with (im sure lots of) necessary tweaking could be a very welcome breakaway from the still good standard ground RB as an optional separate ground gamemmode:
Ground Enduring Confrontation. Infinite respawns, certain vehicles can be spawned in command vehicle function to build “respawn beacons”, way more cap/control areas that then will push the frontline…it could actually be peak as a 2 hour ec gamemode i think.
Update without nerfing MK2/MKK up to 13.7 while they’ve got a buff…
Well we expected this but things are getting out of hand
