Small maps tend to do that.
Wouldn’t mind more spawns in ARB.
ARB maps are already much bigger than GRB ones when comparing effective ranges of both. GRB maps already suffer from being chaotic, mindless furballs especially higher up you go.
This is about making ARB combined, which would really suit the Gaijin’s idea of combined arms game.
Those are some decent suggestions, definitely would help.
But every true combined arms map/mode should be pretty big. You’ll need space to accommodate ground, air and naval units with their respective objectives. If most of the players don’t have patience or aren’t interested, maybe it’s for the best to ditch that combined concept all together.
Just how planes have multiple BRs for various modes, SPAAs could as well.
Range limitations could be fixed by making maps smaller and forcing players to come near certain objectives. SPAAs could also be incorporated from a given tier/BR, just like helicopters or strike drones are in GRB.
Not really, as ground maps are very small in regards to air space in RBGF. The only thing that would help ground would be much bigger maps so planes would have to make an effort and find a target. Its not the same finding a vaiable ground target in 3x3 km map with 1.5x15 km active AO in regards to 10x10 km map with 8x8 km active AO.
This is literally what I proposed?
Move the airfield back.
Your plane has 2 bombs and flies at 400 km/h casually, can accelerate to 500 km/h.
Currently, airfield is like 7 km away. My speedrun bomb to rearm to be able to drop again without practice in the f4u-4 came out at…
Drop bomb at 01:06
Land at 02:13
start Take off at 02:45
Be able to dorp bomb at ~04:10
So, time between bomb drops without maxed crew and without practicing stupidity-style landing where you stall out and belly land on top… you can drop 2 1000 lbs bombs every 3 minutes in the ideal cases at 4.0
Why is this the case? The airfield is 7-8 km away. This is fine for interwar and early war aircraft that struggle to reach 250, 300 km/h.
It should be 15 km away at ranks 3, 4 and 5 (maybe even push to full 20, 25 at rank 4 and 5 since speeds allow it). The time between bomb drops would encourage using strike aircraft rather than fighter-bombers.
You did not. You only proposed air travel increase. Ground maps are still too small and finding targets is way too easy especially on high BRs with targeting pods.
I would also like to see removal of that “Enemy team is/stopped capturing zone” message. That thing is basically a giant beacon for CAS.
I don’t know why we should be privileged to information on capture point’s status, if you’re close by you’ll see it yourself, you don’t need any stupid messages.
We could save something like “Enemy has captured zone” message, so the position is revealed only after capping has be done and CAS don’t have like 30 seconds to engage you.
It’s always visible at the top of the screen anyway. Remove the text all you want, doesn’t change a thing.
It’d be easy to remove that animation as well.
It sounds like you’re proposing abandoning WT being WT…which is a non-starter for WT’s future.
As for the other bits, I agree–I figured an RB GFs map like [(RB AF) Alt. History] Krymsk could accommodate multiple battles (perhaps even more than 4 GFs battles) operating on the ground while the bigger RB AFs match occurred overall…but I never went ahead with writing out the whole breadth of the idea.
The combined idea I have is much further reaching than what is currently had…but it’s hardly a reason to give up on what is. To give up on what we have now is to give up on WT period.
The main fault with the SPAAs in RB AFs concept is the mobility limitation (and players’ attention spans)…particularly when you consider the vertical ‘roads’ often seen on RB AFs maps.
Without naming the exact quadrant it’s in on the Britain map, I recall seeing a ‘road’ that was just plain vertical. Humorous as that is, it’s a commentary on the fact that SPAAs would need far more than what they have to traverse RB AFs maps.
I have no idea if it’s a glitch with the patch or not, but these continuously jam now. Capture point control shifts stay on the screen for minutes at a time nowadays…and it’s irritating.
I don’t particularly care about the status notifications myself…with/without them is fine by me, you just have to monitor the board well.
Didn’t WT start as a plane-only game ?
Seeing games grow and include more various modes/maps/etc. is a natural thing, but if players are reluctant to engage in the true combined aspect I think Gaijin should take that concept way more leniently, allowing much more freedom to players (separated standalone modes for all military branches).
Never said it would be plug and play. There would surely be some needed changes, but if Gaijin is so keen on making their game combined arms, I think doing those wouldn’t be an issue.
AI ground fire is harmless unless you’re within 3km of an airfield.
It’s just giving the same treatment to Ground Realistic that Air Realistic has enjoyed all these years. What’s the issue?
Air modes were what made WT successful at first–but the game has always been abput CA gameplay.
Trust me, that concept is ridiculed for good reason.
I seldom play RB AFs anymore, but I remember my surprise at being blasted by mid-map AI AAA…it was an unexpectly potent encounter which leads me to doubt how watered down mid-map AAA is.
I don’t think it’s insta-death, but it has teeth I’m sure.
That idea is inconsistent with WT values. RB GFs is the player-centered CA mode (RB AFs is complemented in part by AI due to distances).
Why would a CA game start by being non-CA ?
Yeah by people that mostly play Air and wouldn’t want their mode to change. That concept is perfectly viable, you’ll just need to do few changes before it’s ready.
Not really. If GRB has player controlled ground and air units, ARB should as well. That’s literally giving both modes the same treatment and it would go hand in hand with combined arms aspect.
I can’t figure out a way for that to made enjoyable and good for everyone, unless there is a 64v64 ground/air battle on a full size ARB map with a larger playable ground area. But then you run into the issue of it being a ground battle with an ARB match happening at the same time.
How could something like that be done?
I think it would be pretty simple to make ARB combined and playable, just take GRB as an example. As for the enjoyable and good parts, I can’t really tell since combined stuff would be harder to balance, with GRB as a living example of that.
ARB needs to be redone from scratch, and this is the perfect moment to do it, seeing how it’s getting worse and worse every year.
Give it GRB treatment, make maps pretty small and put objectives to incentivize people to hang out. This is where player controller ground units would come into play.
It doesn’t need to be combined all the way down from 1.0, you can introduce it at a certain tier/BR as well.
Absolutely not. Some planes need alot of space if they want to use their advantages well, such as bad dogfighters like the F-104s (the only time I’ve felt claustrophobic in a plane was on a 64x64km map in sim in the F-104G). Most American propeller planes are screwed too since they need space to climb or else they will be wrecked by a 109/spit/yak.
Objectives being too close together is one of the primary issues that ARB has, it forces everyone into a small area instead of spreading everything out. It also has the side effect of most matches being steamrolls that end in a 1v5.
Same goes for ground vehicles, but seems like Gaijin is fine with having that in the game,. This is simply a more-or-less copy of GRB but with air units.
It’s surely not perfect by any means, but it’s hard to make proper combined modes with only 16 players on each side. GRB is a prime example, but if that’s the Gaijin’s idea of combined, implementing the same system in ARB shouldn’t be a problem in their eyes.
That is wrong. Some tanks work better, but they aren’t made irrelevant by map changes.
Making stuff more condensed will ruin ARB.
Is it wrong though ?
Some tanks are inherently much stronger on CQC rat mazes than the others. TD casemates are the best example of that. Yes, they can camp and overwatch a sightline, but pushing and moving around the maze is highly detrimental and puts them on a giant back foot.
I doubt some planes would get unusable by making the maps smaller, it’s just their efficiency would drop down.
Ok, but why should maps be made smaller, besides ground players wanting changes to be forced on air players?
And that is bad.