And how exactly would you add airfields to the Pacific maps for the planes that are physically incapable of ever getting off of an aircraft carrier? cough P-38 cough
8 Likes
It works out pretty well (i have been playing nothing but carrier planes lately)
Remember spawn delay will be gone. You can still get to the battlefield in a similar time if you wish. Perhaps not best idea to rush though
2 Likes
Really liked the airifield idea when I saw it the other day - glad you made a full post on it - would be a great addition!
You should also have the option to successfully land and change squads without a ticket cost - instead of having to suicide, if for example you’re in a fighter and the enemy stops spawning planes.
4 Likes
ah yes! good one!, i forgot that dot point. have added.
1 Like
I really like the option to be able to compose your own ordnance and ammo loadout for planes, this is eventually a must-have for enlisted.
How would you handle the plane stats displayed in the menu/research tree? Best turn time and max climb rate will depend on the loadout you give to your plane, and I think the game would have to default the stats to those of an “empty” plane - and then display the changes to these stats on the ordnance selection page based on the loadout you give to your plane.
Next up: Airfields! I very much agree with the benefits you list. Preferably though, I would like to have air spawns moved further away from the play area as an interim solution - simply because it appears to take a while for the devs to cycle through the ongoing redesign of each map, so that’d be a fast solution for the meantime. Ultimately, airfields are a more fitting and elaborate way of going about this change.
BR balancing is good thing to keep in mind and I understand why you could only touch on it very vaguely. Plane BR depends heavily on the loadout of the plane and the BR will have to depend on the base plane and how much ordnance you add.
Let’s face it: Players select the plane with the best ordnance. And once custom loadouts are there, it’ll be very tempting to just strap on as many rockets as you possibly can. As a counterweight to that, you must end up at a high BR to face better fighters and equal enemy ordnance.
On the other hand, BR needs to take into account how good a plane is indepentently of its ordnance. This will actually allow for more accurate BR representation: Planes with subpar mobility (e.g. AP-1, SBD-3, PE-2) will become playable at low BR without running a risk of being uptiered, simply since their frame itself will rank them at BR I or II at most. In order to stay at the low BR though, players will have to decline the use of a 1000lb or the 100kg bombs - or else the plane loadout page will end up moving them up to BR III+ to better account for their ordnance.
The BR of an airplane would thus be calculated like this:
(Quantity of Ordnance x Caliber of Ordnance) + Plane mobility
I think this adaptive approach to plane BR will end up being drastically more accurate and balanced than what’s currently in place. Your suggestion on custom plane loadouts is an important stepping stone and I’m glad you included it in such a high-effort post.
5 Likes
While well-made, I do not agree with quite a number of the suggestions listed.
I’ll break this down piecemeal once I have the time.
1 Like
It’s fantastic and I dream of something like this. It would make the game even better and plane gameplay so much more fun.
@Bigote0070 I see you like the idea as well, do you think you could pass it down to helpers? 
8 Likes
I like where you’re going with it, but I don’t particularly like your plane selection, nor the national rationales, they’re pretty senseless. I don’t like the idea of mixed trees as you currently have them between between the main nation and sub-nations be they allied or axis. I don’t want to fly German planes if I’m looking to field an Italian force or vice versa. I don’t really care what the current BRs are if I’m building an Italian force I’ll select what is appropriate for a given BR, within a single national load out. Same goes for small arms and armour.
I like the overall concept of keeping the fighters and attackers separated by role, noting that in a “combined arms” game and so in order to have some effect vs ground targets many of the fighters will tend to carry at least the light bombs they have now (like the 50-100Kg load outs)
I like the aspect of progressing single engine CAS attackers to twin engine, that makes sense from, a game escalation perspective and as the tanks get heavier on the ground so does the respective bomb / rocket load to deal with them.
I like the idea of airfields, I think a similar re-arming and repairing concept for planes would work, in the same way as vehicles. The only question is whether you’d be expected to bail your crew out of the plane on the runway to spanner away the damage in the same manner as on ground vehicles, or would it be sufficient to just have the timer.
2 Likes
I would Say Is the best solution… But because the map are historical based for the moment i see It hard for now implement it
1 Like
True, But they have made history take a backseat to gameplay in many other areas. I think the benefits to gameplay here are enough to overlook it…I mean, its a huge map that no one but a Pilot sees
*EDIT Oh also, I know somehow @tommyZZM added Airfields with working AA, repair and rearm to the moscow map.
8 Likes
And didn’t the allies build airfields in the pacific anyway?
Thats the issue, those are huge map Who are almost unusued, i would Say whatewere air rework + airfield should come with a possibility of fully Explore the map, with more player, more plane, more things to do, more meat…
2 Likes
Thats fair enough. I just expanded upon the trees as they exist currently (and they are mixed)
as for the planes, its a biased list (My personal Favorites). Planes that I consider fun, good choices or offer a good matchup from Warthunder. Also there are so many you could add
BRs are ofcourse just a first draft, and example for the purpose of this exercise.
Id just leave it as is on the Carrier now. You land, it repairs and rearms you and repositions you for take off. Dont really want more tedious downtime by having to get out to repair part by part IMO
4 Likes
The ultimate Dream…
As a long time warthunder and enlisted player i dont really pay attention to the stats cards
. They are mostly useless as they generally arent accurate or dont tell you the whole story.
But yeah, more ordnance, less performance. Even if it just puts red numbers on your stats card to let you know there is a downside.
Warthunder goes even further with fuel weight effect on performance
Also another important discussion. Many of these planes are capable of carrying HUGE payloads that would ruin a ground players day. Loadout would have to be "artificially restricted a little. Currently there is nothing higher than a 500kg bomb and it probably needs to stay that way.
Multiple drops would have to be considered aswell.
For example:
Single drop for fighters (250 kg max bomb size)
Double drop for fighters (50-100 max bomb size)
Double drop for Attackers (???)
Triple drop for bombers (no more than 500kg per drop at high BR, 100-250 low BR)
Quad drop for bombers (carpet bomb 50kg to 100kg)
1 Like
Wholehartedly 100% have my support. Solid ideas, much better immersion over current system. Would keep both air players and ground players happy.
I would esp like even minimal cutomizable payloads for ASFs; in games with dead airplay they could still serve a role, even with tiny bombs. More rare payloads like rockets, napalm or gun pods would also help here vs regular HE.
4 Likes
Indeed, gunpods could be interesting!!! Combined with belt choices (HE, AP or HVAP)
3 Likes
In my honest opinion I do not think it really matters because end game is its own nightmare so having some way to stop the suicide bombing would be great
