damn thats a shame it’d be nice if they could increase the chance of it pulling
1 Like
Return the S‑8 rockets to the Mi‑24V, Mi‑24P, and Ka‑29 for those who already bought and upgraded these helicopters before the update. I think it’s extremely unfair to take away the S‑8 rockets just because S‑5 rockets have been added — this is especially unfair to players who have already researched all the modifications on these helicopters before the update.
I tried out Nuclear escalation…Its still flarakpz ignoring multipath, notch, chaff and the game mode being about who can pvp his way to the big nuke sooner and snowball the match into an unenjoyable nuclear snowball effect.
Spectacularly failed at delivering PVE. All because Gaijin forces their antics on it. The first iteration was fun, all it needed is the SPAA being confined to similar limitations they have in the hands of players instead of blatant aimbot . But nah, lets make the match time shorter, lets leave nukes cheap and make ground attack impossible by forcing jets to choose different airfields after death, thus spreading them out all over the map…
This shouldnt be a short game mode with a snowball effect.
Next match…your matchmaker placed me into one that was over under a minute.
Hey, guess what. Gaijin doesn’t care. They will do whatever they want with the game. Gaijin is milking the money with 4th Gen aircraft, soon to be infantry and 5th Gen too. The game is dying, especially sim mode. They won’t fix or re-work much to improve the game. They are just going to keep milking the money until the game dies.
see i take issue with this because, just because you did not die to the overpressure, doesn’t mean you wont die to that transmission now flying through your chest
Snails, are you overheating? Could you explain how the KV has almost a meter of frontal armor? Maybe your mechanics should have been thrown out long ago.
Played Sea AB earlier today - the usual ships that actually have AA guns had no problem still taking out aircraft - to say nothing of the missile armed ships. Only ships that had a problem, are the same ships that have had a problem always, because they have little to no AA because they are a 1916 or 1920 configuration of a ship when air power was next to nothing against mid-late war and even post war aircraft. And that’s because they need to get rid of this nonsense where you go from DD’s, to cruisers, to BB’s and just give each type it’s own line in a tree, rework some of the mechanics like spotting to be practical not literal, work on the map and spawn design, and work on the damage because while yes a 5 inch AP shell isn’t going to pen many spots of a battleship it can still turn the top half of it in to a burning hellscape that takes out any crew in the area and starts cooking off various types of ammo, and that unless AA gunners are not being replaced or the like can reduce the crew that way.
I haven’t seen any actual bombers in ground AB, where I play, just cause I was in higher tier stuff, but in Air Arcade - it seems less like there is an issue with the bomber damage model, as much as it’s a problem with the 20mm rounds at least (I haven’t used anything above 20 yet on a bomber really). I shoot at bombers with .50 cals, they end up burning out of control fast and the pilots getting knocked out even when attacking from behind. I shoot the same plane with a 20mm AP round, which has more pen - it’s not getting to the pilots or damaging systems the same way.
Okay this is marginally better in one way but it way overcorrects. The “bomber problem” was never some kind of isolated issue. It was a damage model issue, and the issue wasn’t bomber fragility. It was bomber fragility being AHISTORIC. The only bombers that were ever this tough that i know of was generally the Wellington, the B-17, and the B-29. The issue with the fragility with bombers was never that the fuselage was taking too much damage in general. It was mostly because too little damage would completely break large parts of the plane off completely. Like a stray 20mm would break off your entire elevator of flap. or a stray 2 could take off your entire tail or wing. Or that a burst of .30 cals could take off your tail assembly. Thats not how it would have worked. And in that sense this is good. The way damage works is to damage the structural integrity of the plane so that MANEUVERS would be untenable to pull off as the Gs would break the tail, the wing, the fuselage in general. It was that, or damaging the engine components enough to make it impossible to make it back to your airfield which would often be far out of sight, over hundreds of miles away. However the structural stability relies almost entirely on the skeleton of the aircrafts braces and minimally the strength of the skin. Each different type of aircraft was unique in how strong and weak their structure was, and making a plane bigger with multiple engines doesn’t just make an aircrafts build stronger. The Do-17 family, the Ju-88 family, and the multiple relatively lightweight duel engines, including the insane inclusion of the Catalinas shows how shallow and surface level of a change this was and the health of the gameplay and this change are incompatable. I would strongly appreciate looking deeply at each aircrafts history in documents on what its structural abilities were along with looking at the blueprints of them to come up with what damage model makes the most sense. This is not a change that should be taken lightly and as so it should not be implemented lightly.
(And anyone saying that they don’t think its that bad, take the XA-38 Grizzly out on Test Drive, take the HE rounds and see how many direct hits a Ju-88 can take. Yknow, the Schnellbomber? The one that went through a bunch of weight saving changes to be as fast as possible with a reasonable bombload. What do we think was sacrificed in the pursuit of speed, of which they thought speed could perhaps make up for anyways? If you’re still guessing the answer is how sturdy the structure was by making it lighter and more streamlined instead of bulky and stable. )
1 Like
yes gaijin put me in an NE match thats basically over and then give me a crew lock that lasts 7 minutes when i leave. you truly are gods gift to this earth
4 Likes
Are you going to actually implement the GNSS on the AARGM-ER (present on the statcard from DEV) or is half-assing the norm right now?
[DEV] AARGM-ER Missing the Ability to Launch With GNSS
AGM - 88G GNSS non functioning
And the B-52 was given a heat signature from the F-14, so now its false heat targets don’t even deflect missiles like the AIM-9B or R-3S.
You know it’s the norm for them to butcher it. They’ll just move on to adding JASSM to Warthunder and other missiles and ignore the previous missiles. New contents ($$$$) is what matters most.
The Ju 88 A-1, A-4 and C-6 were forgotten?
Why arent the bots slowing down to fire?
I thought the OSAs, BMPs, etc etc… that are moving are supposed to slow down before being able to fire?
They seem to be firing at max speed again.
3 Likes
- Ju 88 (all variants)
1 Like
Oh, now i saw it. Still they forgot about the C-6 as far as i can tell (well last time i checked a bit more than a week ago.)
1 Like
After a number of matches at 12.3, there is definetly need for some notable changes for Nuclear Escalation still.
SPAAs are still too strong.
SPAAGs are deadly if you get too close, the BMPs snipe you if you dare attempt a conventional attack run on the convoy, the OSAs are still completely undefeatable short of hiding behind a hill.
Let alone other issues like the sheer number of SPAAs.
Changes needed immediately:
- Reduce the effectiveness of all AI firing guns, notably via an increase in reaction time, especially for non radar assisted vehicles such as the IFVs.
- Reduce Accuracy for all SPAAs, especially those without a radar (and even more especially those that arent even SPAAs like the IFVs)
- Reduce the density of SPAA, either by remvoing some SPAAs or by increasing the map size whilst keeping the number of AA the same.
- Make SPAAs slow down, if not completely stop before they can fire.
- Something is fundementally broken with the damage models of SPAAs as well, I was finding that direct hits from a Paveway IV was just giving hits vs an OSA, which doesnt make any sense.
- AA need to switch their radars on far further than they do currently, 2-3x the enagement range would be more reasonable than the current 1.5x.
- Interception rates are still way too high, and the SAMs are able to intercept weapons that dont make any sense, had an OSA intercept a Paveway IV…
- Force SPAA to use radar if they have one, no radar lock, no firing or guiding. So that way, you can actually chaff a SACLOS SAM, currnetly, dumping 100s of large chaff, does nothing.
Much of this applies to naval AA as well
Economy
The economy is clearly built around nuking targets, not using conventional weapons, which effectively kills a huge part of this gamemode for myself and a lot of others ive talked too/played with. But there is far more issues than just the target kill rewards.
- Remove first spawn SL cost, so that you are only paying for the repair/spawn AFTER your first death, not before you’ve even taken off for the first time. This means the match isnt being started in debt and radically alters the balance of SL losses and gains to be more reasonable (This has been suggested for Air Sim too)
- Increase the reward for targets across the board, especially important ones like SAMs. Make SEAD gameplay as worthwhile as slinging nukes
- ARB has a mechanic where repair costs are based upon flight time, this needs to be implemented in this gamemode as well, as the entire gamemode is basically built around spawn killing. This would mitigate repeated spawn kills destroying any SLs you’ve earned.
- Rebalance repair costs so that they make sense, some have much higher costs than is appropraite for the vehicle in question.
- reduce the repair costs across the board for all aircraft
Targets
The current gamemode is built around throwing nukes, and not using conventional weapons. This is clear with the layout of the AI targets, but also more crucially, the survivability of the ammo depots and fuel storage buildings, these take an insane amount of punishment to destroy using conventional arms and this simply doesnt make sense, it should not take multiple 1000lb to destroy a fuel tank.
- Reduce the damage resistance of all buildings
- Increase the number of buildings per site (If economy is concern from this, just split the cost more evenly over the targets)
- Add other interesting targets like bridges, fixed radar installations (not necessarily guiding SAMs) and other base types, like FoBs, refineries, etc etc. A port for both teams would also be an interesting target to attack, maybe also with ships in port.
Naval
Naval attack is an interesting mechanic, but the targets are pretty poor. Not just from economy PoV, but also from an actual gameplay PoV
- Completely rework how the AI can repair damage (So smaller attacks, are more impactful)
- Completely overhaul naval vessels still on legeacy damage models, like the Carriers
- Add Naval reinforcements that slowly replace destroyed ships (have them spawn in at the edge and travel towards the taskforce of ships)
- Add additional naval targets, like landing ships that deploy tanks behind the front lines, naval convoys that head towards their respective teams, etc etc
Gameplay
As Ive said a few times so far, the emphasis on nukes is too great, they should be a big thing to deploy, not mundane, and both their cost and the gameplay should reflect that.
- Significantly increase SP cost from 300 & 600 respectively to 1000 & 1500 respectively at a minimum.
- Allow Nukes on all appropriate aircraft as a loadout option, allowing players to bring them as part of a wider loadout, this also better balances the nuke carriers vs the CAP/CAS they face.
- Significantly Increase match duration, the matches end too quickly to actually do anything notable, most of the time barely any AFs are actually destroyed. Multiple matches today the game ended just as we cleared a hole in the AA for a nuke carrier to get through.
- Prevent join-in-progress very late in the match. It is frustrating spending 20 minutes in a queue, jsut to join a finished match.
Future additions
- Large strategic targets like we saw in the deep strike event would be interesting targets to attack with conventional weapons
- Helicopters need to be added as a playable vehicle type, currently they have no gameplay outside of GRB which is a boring gamemode for them
- CBUs, especially anti-runway weapons like JP-233 would be a lot of fun.
- More stand-off weapons are needed, such as cruise missiles such as Storm Shadow.
- Switch from random MM, to preset Air Sim style brackets, as some aircraft are totally at the mercy of what the MM gives it. They can be good or DOA and its totally random.
- ECM
- Decoy weapons such as Spear-EW
- Ground Mapping Radar to attack targets without LoS more accurately
Game-wide Improvments
There are a lot of core/foundational issues that really need looking at, but I think one of the most pressing is the RWR. Even at medium BRs (11.0-12.0) the RWR noise is insane, and its really difficult to tell what is going on and what isnt. So the RWR interface needs overhauling.
(At top tier, where the main A2A threat is also radar based, there is so much noise that you might as well not even have an RWR)
- Colourise threat types
- Filter target type (air or ground)
- warning panel (so it makes it really clear when there is a note worthy event like a launch warning that might be hidden under a lot of other contacts)
- Adjustable range scale
- multiple audio cues for different events (launch warning for example)
Bugs/Issues
- Buildings appear on naval search radars
- Convoys go underground in places.
- Strelas seem to give radar launch warnings
8 Likes
a number of attempts at getting 12.3 matches more like. matchmaker was abysmal tonight.
SPAA accuracy needs a nerfing. we are getting laserbeamed even when throwing enough chaff and flares out to cause large scale ecological disasters.
reduce SL spawn costs overall, they make no sense at all with how some aircraft are more expensive than others despite being worse.
add lower BRs without nukes too. this mode may honestly be better without nuclear bombs at all tbh and will give low tier strike planes a place to exist without being a purulent wart on GRB
Set BR brackets rather than a gamble for uptiers or downtiers would be appreciated greatly too.
3 Likes
Yeah that too, though i also give it a pinch of salt given we were 4 manning it as well.
Queue time wasnt too bad with just 2 of us and then 3. Only really got bad when we hit 4 (Blame Teaz :P)
With this, I want a dev to confirm that they are even affected by either. Doesnt feel like they can actually be chaffed. Period. And the radars are just for show. So I think fundementally changing the SACLOS SAMs to actually be affected by Chaff by requiring a radar lock, would be interesting.
Yeah, ultimately that is what I want too. At all BRs tbh, It was funny in April Fools event, stupid day to day. But the bare minimum is re-balance them as something special, not mundane
2 Likes
the amount of times ive had my kills stolen by SPAA is more than kills ive actually gotten
3 Likes