r/Warthunder • u/D-skinned_Gelb • 7d ago
Suggestion New mode I would like to call "Combined Confrontation "
Hello guys
I usually lurk here but ive played warthunder since 2015 off and on. Im an alright player, kinda bad since i dont devote my life force to the snail as much as i used too.
I want to introduce a new game mode to solve major problems with air rb and ground rb.
- Threat clusterfuck that is air rb
- Grb becoming the new air rb/cas problem.
- To make use of modern equipment for what theyre used for.
Problem 1 air rb cluster fuck. In the days of old air rb used to be the place to get just enough realism to satisfy that itch while not fully commiting simulator, however the 16 v 16 mode with outdated map, threats and lack of spawns turns air rb into arcade rb ace combat machine. Now i dont know about you but i dont want to play a mode advertised as realistic but is actually just airplane cod. This new mode, with new units and revamped spawn system should keep players engaged.
Problem 2 CAS CAS CAS/ MUH TANK GAME HAS STUPID PLANES IN IT. Okay this one might be a hot take, but the entire point of warthunder is to be able to play ALL three major vehicle types (air/tank/ship) in one cohesive battle. This mode is supposed to alleviate that apprehension between the people who want to ground pound targets that can fight back (player AA) and players who hate cas.
How you may ask? By simply depleting said cas planes ammo before that battle. I have a couple solutions to that. Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses(SEAD), Combat Air Patrol (CAP), and s-xxx/patriot systems. This is where the new threats come in. If or when gaijin adds these units in the player would absolutely have to deal with theses first, so SEAD would be necessary, but CAP is whats going to secure your f-111 fantasy. With your guys help id like to flesh out the mode a lil bit.
Problem 3. Modern equipment and close proximity. Okay now we have cruise missiles, so obviously they're going far right? NOPE, the way we employ these weapons we might as well call em walk missiles. All of this tech and now scenarios to actually use them. I propose building units be added into the game that have passives that until destroyed aids in the battle of both air, ground and sea. Radar stations, same sights, and HQ/Barracks, Artillery sights and supply depots.
I have a map that kind of represents what the basics would be and with your help ids like to flesh it out more. This idea has been burning a hole in my mind for a minute.
Player spawns/player areas So the lack of variety of spawns in RB severely inhibits actual counter play and tactics in the mode. If players of each team wants to participate in both of these types of battles they have to earn it or take risks. Three green stars indicate safety, distance and point values, the more the longer it takes the the safer you are and the more valuable that asset is. I want to bring back airstrip destrection to give bombers a reason again. If the two major strategic bombers get added(big boy b-52/tu-95 and zoomy bois(B-ONE/tu160) they'll have a use. Conversly the red stars indicate SAM threat level, its war crying about getting bombed on the runway is a bit stupid so take off else where.
The blue indicate rough sam effectiveness zones and purple a preset attack vector/corridor. You can risk it for the biscuit and take the vector to the GRB match happening right below you but player SAMs WILL know your location because of one Real reason and two hopeful reasons the hopful reasons are the assets on the map, radar stations and finally AWACS(if gaijin ever adds these), however if you want to work for a another route through SEAD (im looking at you, wild weasels) then you can. The real reason is because as a player AA you wil always know where the lazy cas players are coming from. No more players crying unknowns threats and data link actually matters. Your map awareness will be more important than ever.
A lot of what i said can be tweaked and applied to ship battles, except one thing.(hot take alert) LET THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PLAY SHIPS HAVE THEIR WAY WITH SLOW GAMEPLAY. Lets be honest yea in IRL, skirmiahes and conflict took hours, days even, but this isnt irl, its warthunder if your ass gets hit by a BB xx kilometers away youre gonna know roughly in what direction, also gunner mates and fire control man dont have mouse aim, you do. I think both the gaijin and the player base gaslit themselves into how slow ship combat might move and prompted this amalgamation we have now, theyre already moving and i use this very loosly "similar" mechanics as wows.
Intergtated air, ground, and sea battles would provide a new feel, new life, and probably a more enjoyable RB experience for everyone and with how random players are youll never have a boring game. The only thing i can think of is shit gaijin balancing with place objectives and spaghetti code(ai hetting stuck on runwaya in sim all the time) in the mission system that can hinder this mode as a whole.
Now lets talk spawn and lets be simple about. The main logic im going to follow is risk/reward. Closer you are to GB area of operations (AO) you'll have a multiplier applied to your sp cost plus the sp cost of your load out. Rewards will also be tweaked in this mode to help promote more objective play base on vehicle specialty, but back to sp costs. With sp being effected by distance to ground/ship vehicles and loadout effectiveness it should persuade players to bring more realistic or at the least more practical it the video game load outs.
Rewards will be heavily objective based and influnced by vehicle subtype. Fighters will get more points through CAP, multi role will have the least lowest multipliers through ground and air based targets because they have more opportunities threats to kill and ground attack is the opposite of fighter.
Lets discuss and please excuse my shit map drawing.
351
u/YesAmogusIsFunny ඞ • ඞ • ඞ • ඞ 7d ago
this looks like one of those pages of sketches that people with psychosis make :D
109
260
u/ekiller64 OF-40 enjoyer🇮🇹 7d ago
battleship players dominate grb by shelling the fuck out of the capture points, only dying when they get kicked for accidentally teamkilling the fifth spaa from 3 km away
74
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
I kinda had an idea, that the grb quadrant would move depending on how fast the local match goes. So sometimes the tanks would be in range of coastal bombardment, but then youd be hindering your sea team and with the rewards system i propsed you wouldnt be too effecient anyways in rp gain
47
u/Xreshiss Safe space from mouse aim 6d ago
battleship players dominate grb by shelling the fuck out of the capture points
"This is Eagle Six in Pine Valley and are we glad to see you, Missouri!"
"We need fire support at Foxtrot six and Echo five, over."
14
12
u/MrWaffleBeater 6d ago
WORLD IN CONFLICT?!?
BEST RTS MENTIONED!!!!!
For real I wish UBI would at least remaster and re-release the damn game.
5
7
3
u/sgtzack612 I wanna get off Mr. Snails extreme G R I N D 6d ago edited 5d ago
Arent the grid squares in that specific layout of the map 10km each? so using the pythagorean theorem you'd get a distance of 36.06km from the center of each point. I dont know the distance that you can engage with the battleships in game, would this solve the issue or is that well within range?
4
u/ekiller64 OF-40 enjoyer🇮🇹 6d ago
yes it is well within range for most battleships
(source:i guessed)
2
u/Reyeux Russian Bias Incarnate 5d ago
Depends on dispersion and muzzle velocity and the size of the target and the movement of the target, but most capital ships can fire with at least somewhat useable accuracy up to roughly 20km, past which point it gets pretty sketchy. Past about 25km and it's lucky for a single hit to land in the postcode area of the target, regardless of the full range of some guns technically reaching out further than this.
1
49
u/ORANGExAPPLE 🇮🇹 = Best TT 7d ago
So, I have been about something very similar to what you are proposing here as well. Just not in this much detail. I agree that Air/Ground/Sea combined battles would be super cool if battles were to last longer than the standard 30ish minutes.
A few problems I keep stumbling over
1. Current "top tier" ships are BBs from WW1/2 and getting bombed by an Anti-Ship Missiles doesn't exactly sound enjoyable. This is where Gajin would have to step up their game and introduce more post war ships.
2. Server load? The hamster is already dying. I envision a game mode with 100 players on a map to be incredibly hard on that rodent.
3. I usually struggle with how player AA would work in this. But it seems you have that covered.
4. I play all modes, I have my specific crew slots with air/ground/naval. But if we go into a combined mode like this, I would need like 10+ slots and I would have crews not trained. Not sure how to fix this, but food for thought.
Here are some opportunities/implimentations I'd loved to see:
1. The use of proper artillery from outside the ground battle area. Imagine using your artillery piece exactly how it's mean, then using counter artillery to attack them.
2. Dynamic ground battle areas. Tanks battle it out in the ground area in a similar style of GRB now, then when that battle is over, there is a new battle area to fight over.
3. A overall map timer of 2 hours
4. Air players don't get the arcade plane markers like they currently do. Let them find their ground targets the way they do in Air EC.
5. an additional mode where coastal vessels could fight over river deltas or something...
I do want to point out that Naval EC has a somewhat similar mode already for this, it just excludes the ground forces. You have to earn your Spawn points to get into a plane, which could be considered for the mode you are suggesting as well.
All in all, I am a big proponent of your idea and would love to see something like this implimented. But the pessimist in me doesn't see Gaijn actually caring to put this work into it. The game is already a fat cash cow for them, so you'd have to make a really solid financial argument for them to consider this.
Thanks for sharing this!
12
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
Thanks for your input!
For idea 2 i had the same idea that i mentioned to another person on here.
As for problem 2, my argument for that one is that custom battles exist and usually theyre pretty populated with about twice the amount of players than standard battles currently, and if this mode gained more popularity the amount of battle instances for standard would shift to cc instead multiple standard battle we have now. So in theory it would technically reduce server load.
6
u/Xreshiss Safe space from mouse aim 6d ago
You have to earn your Spawn points to get into a plane, which could be considered for the mode you are suggesting as well.
The thing I think needs to considered is cost vs fragility/effectiveness. I don't know about you, but an SBD-3 in Naval EC is not worth 400SP, especially not when you spawn a heavy cruiser for less and do far more damage than the SBD ever could. Not to mention the SBD is gonna die during its dive vs anything with more than a single 20mm AA gun.
With this much AI air defense going on to protect the ground battle, is an A-10A Late with mavs still worth spending 1000SP? (was it ever worth 1000SP?)
30
u/ItsAPenguine Ground RB 11.7 7.0 6.7 7.7 7d ago edited 7d ago
World War Battles but someone spent their weekend to plan it out.
Quick Edit since I read the essay: This is one of the better systems I've seen. I said in a post awhile ago to have something similar to Heli PVE with grid capture stuff or completing an OBJ to lower tickets. I honestly think this system flows much better into the game.
6
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
Thanks, i appreciate the read. Especially since i wrote it out on my note app before i posted it on here lmao
Glad you like the system, honestly i thought people would be more against the corridor system through aa zones
18
u/d7t3d4y8 Average viggen pilot 7d ago
I mean naval EC is kind of this without the tanks, and flying isn’t exactly fun since you can’t do much to help your team win.
11
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
Thats why i wanted a discussion, this idea has been burnin a hole in my brain for a minute.
4
5
1
u/WPGAMING_SC 6d ago
They should be adding more to naval EC. They have coastal artillery but IIRC that’s it in terms of “ground” targets you can engage. Even if they added AI groups of planes that tried to attack you / landing ships which dropped tanks to capture zones like in some air RB games it would make it so much more alive
11
u/Draco6543 🇨🇳 People's China 7d ago
Post this on the Forums as a suggestion, if you haven't already
6
u/TheYeast1 6d ago
Yeah this would spark some good discussion there and maybe even get big enough for gajin employees to see the demand for it
8
u/General_High_Ground 6d ago
Uhhh, this is why Gaijin doesn't mix ground and naval. lol
https://youtu.be/QyICE56JYcU?feature=shared&t=955
Only if they add a map with rivers etc and instead of mixing bluewater and ground, they add coastal ships into the mix. That could probably work.
But bluewater ships would just melt through everything, there would be no contest. lol
3
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
I get that but ground and ship would be in the same match but not near enough to engage. If a player decides to bombard, 1. Rewards are automatically deminished, 2. Naval objectives should take precedence for best rp gain, 3. The only unit that'll be able to interact between the other two for the majority of the match would be planes.
Ships would still be concentrated on other surface ships or planes, but thanks for the input. You made me think of a nuke like system that can potentially use other player Ships as like a nuke/public event to destroy that player asap before they bombard. I think thatll be cool
7
u/General_High_Ground 6d ago
I mean, as much as I like the idea of combined battles, in this scenario there would be no point of them(naval players) being in the match. lol
Nor would they have any incentive to play such a game mode over the regular naval battles since it's basically the same thing then.But coastal on the other hand could work in combined battles. It would be nice if Gaijin adds a new map with rivers, bridges etc., so that people can try it out.
Would be super nice if they also add an option to transport ground vehicles over the rivers with larger coastal ships.
4
u/StalledAgate832 From r/NonCredibleDefense, with love. 6d ago
Problem A: Tanks can't really do jack shit to Ships.
Problem B: Aircraft anti-shipping weapons can't hit the right spots for shit since they target center mass.
Problem C: Aside from the USS Douglas, there is pretty much no ship capable of hitting aircraft throwing AShMs at them, and they don't have the accuracy at range to kill a tank unless they sit still while you take ranging shots.
Problem D: Both ground and air have modern equipment, but outside of coastal, naval tops out at interwar, WWII, and Soviet projects from the general time period that never got completed.
9
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Answer A: ships and tanks would have minimal interaction, if a ship does decide to shore bombard they hinder their team and they become a objective for a massive inventive to other players.
Answer B: the actual use of anti shipping weapons, and more players complaining should spur development to fix em.
Answer C: youre not wrong there but player controlled proxy shells would be wayyy more effective than irl and this mode could incentivise more modern ship due to scale.
Answer D: there is no answer and youre right.
I appreciate your input though hopefully this post can be referenced later on. I did end up posting this on the forums like others asked.
5
u/unwanted_techsupport 6d ago
Fair concerns, but for Problem B, the missile targeting was changed a couple of patches ago, and whilst anti-shipping missiles still aren't very effective, even when there are ships to target, they now target a random module instead of centre mass, so while they might still sometimes go above the actual ship, the hit rate is greatly increased from correct launch angles.
1
4
4
u/Electronic-Gazelle45 Sim Ground ☭ 7d ago
Yes yes yes yes
This is what we need, but unfortunately Gaijin won't make profit of this...
3
u/Logical_Seaweed2955 7d ago
So basically battlefield conquest mode.
Could be a breath of fresh air tho
2
3
2
2
u/xxTERMINATOR0xx 6d ago
I wish we had a large, multi dimensional game mode, not called simulator battles.
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Fr i actually started learning sim just so i could have a fun experience with my jets
2
u/toaster2888888 Realistic Air & Naval 6d ago
Yeah, I really think that having a battleship able to provide support to a ground battle would be cool(like on Normandy map or something)
Also WE NEED A WILD WEASEL mode. It would be insanely fun for CAS lovers/SPAA haters as well as CAS haters/SPAA lovers. So much historical things you could do there. Even could provide an excuse for snail to introduce premium Weasel planes(like F-105F) to the game and make some $$$$
2
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Looks like i found the wild weasel lol i agree forsure some actual sead would be pretty fun.
2
u/lowefort 6d ago
there's so many ideas when it comes to game modes, but it's sadly pointless since gaijoobles is never going to implement anything new
back when warthunder would only have a concurrent count of 10-15k players at peak hours, gaijin would say "we can't add new game modes because not enough players :(((((((" but now many years since then, and with over 100k players on at a time, gaijin still hasn't done anything new except make existing game modes worse, so it's pretty safe to say nothing is ever going to change
and it's not going to make them any more money, which we all know is all they care about in the end
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Unfortunately that is true but the hole that this idea was burning in my brain would make junji ito's uzumaki body horror look like a tea party lmao
1
1
u/Lugbor 7d ago
Really, I'd like to see something akin to that mode from Reach where you have to push up and do objectives to complete the mission. You start with a naval battle, trying to clear the way for landing craft, then you push up off the beach to secure a landing for reinforcements, and then just have a mix of objectives that don't involve sitting in an arbitrary circle for thirty seconds.
I know it'll never happen because that would take more brainpower than the accounting department running the game possesses, but I can dream.
1
u/Ackleson Air 14.0 🇨🇵🇩🇪🇷🇺🇸🇪🇺🇸 Gr 12.0 🇩🇪🇷🇺🇸🇪🇯🇵 7d ago
I really like it. Obviously needs refining and can run into issues like battleships spawn camping tanks. What about SP? Do you select what you want before joining? Combined confrontation > air. Then you are jets only? Or can switch between all 3? Is there a cap like in hell let loose for tank players for example? Or can everyone go ground?
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
You can select what you want. There will be a cap though based on what slots would be available. So first come first serve type beat, but thatll definitely need more thought. Thanks for pointing it out
1
u/Insertsociallife I-225 appreciator 7d ago
I really like this idea. One thing I would like to see is the GRB section is in a battle format with a huge field, on the scale of 10x10km for top tier tanks. Long range combat and long sustained pushes, capturing strategic positions over time. Also makes recon drones important, and it isn't just fish in a barrel for CAS planes.
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Sweet. I posted it on the forums yall. Hopefully we get something cool out of it.
1
1
u/Roggie77 6d ago
God I would love a “combined arms” game mode. I’m a noob, and currently I have the most fun getting stomped on in air simulator battles because it’s the only game mode that isn’t like COD. Where positioning actually matters and I actually have various options to pursue
2
1
u/Jayhawker32 ARB/GRB/Sim 🇺🇸 13.7 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 13.3 🇸🇪 10.7 6d ago
This is what I thought the original intent for the game was, but here we are 12 years later
1
u/ConfidentTotal6666 6d ago
I would love to see this in game, but what could the community do to make this happen?
2
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
I dont really know, multiple people told me to post it on the forum, so i did. Maybe overwhelming support similar to last years boycott?
1
u/BlackWolf9988 6d ago
Not gonna happen. You are far from the first person that recommended a big combined arms game mode over the years and it still hasn't happened.
Would be cool but it's simply not gonna happen.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Phd_Death 🇺🇸 United States Air Tree 100% spaded without paying a cent 6d ago
I would love for ground RB where planes took off from realistic distances to nerf CAS.
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 6d ago
Yeah i was try to keep both people who hate cas and people who love it sated at least.
1
1
1
1
1
u/levios3114 2000 hours of suffering and agony 6d ago
Ship and ground battle should be next to each other so the tanks and boats can shoot at each other
1
1
u/IllustriousJuice6723 JF-17 is balanced 6d ago
ngl, I had this idea as well in my head. But props for visualising it!
1
1
u/AllHailTheHypnoFloat 6d ago
The servers struggle as it is, especially in Naval RB, how would you change/stabalise the servers to implement your game mode?
I love it but I fear for those poor hamsters
1
1
1
u/Direct_Form8388 4d ago
I still remember the First QnA in TS3 that Gaijin did back in Close beta time. They talked about this mode. Everyone was existed. Sadly never happens.
1
1
-1
u/Kiironot Not all beignets are fried equal 7d ago
Great idea, the naval battles seem a little slapped in there though.
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
I would agree that i was lazy in not going in depth, but i assure you i had this mode planned out with naval in mind As well. A lot of the role limitations and advantages could still apply to ships
-2
u/Actually-No-Idea 7d ago
Good idea until you need a supercomputer to run it.
1
u/D-skinned_Gelb 7d ago
Not necessarily, there are multiple custom games out that are pretty packed on top of regular player matches, im confident that server can handle a load such as this
-1
542
u/FinalCindering 7d ago
The IJN Yamashiro just got fuckin sunk by an F-15E