A Buff to Non-Player Air Defense and Ships

[autumn spoke]

Non-player-controlled units in Nuclear Option are significantly weaker than players. From the least threatening ground vehicle to the most dangerous warship, all are just a trivial obstacle to even a single player in a Cricket.
This negatively impacts the gameplay of both co-op and pvp matches, by reducing the incentive to fly diverse airframes, use diverse weapons, and tactics.

The fact that aircraft are by far the greatest threat in the game biases most players to use A2A centric, multi-role aircraft. Ifrits and Vortexes excel at every role they must fulfill, reducing the need for the other airframes(other than x4 jammer Medusas which help in BVR fights).
Combine this with the fact that attacking ground units in the first place is completely optional, and you get a meta which just has Ifrits slapping each other while trying to nuke airfields, with almost everything else being distractions not worth going for.

The aircraft in our game can carry sensors and weapons of far greater capability and in greater numbers than their real-life, contemporary equivalents can, but our ground and sea vehicles are barely comparable or outright weaker than even contemporary technology.

If they'd be comparable to players in threat level, you'd need to use proper strategy and tactics against them since they themselves are specialized equipment only held back by their lack of speed and kinetic energy (which reduces effective missile range, requiring bigger missiles)

I imagine that the Shard would be closest to player levels of danger (same with a combo of Sentry, Anvil, and BoltStrike)
And all other units would scale around that.

I'm not sure how those units are best buffed, but I can offer some ideas, as questionable as some may be. (dont judge this whole suggestion based just on those, buffing could simply be a fire-rate buff or smth, so upvote if you agree with the message ABOVE this statement, and if you wish, offer your own take and/or constructive criticism)

List of possible changes:

All air defense get a dedicated radar which detects munitions up to their max engagement range (WEZ) and which can be jammed by a Medusa, forcing them to then rely on opticals or innacurate DataLink. HLT-R offers weapons grade track quality for allies within 1km, allowing the other AD to turn off their radars.

All air defense cooperate to take down incoming volleys if they are within 5km of eachother, they don't fire at the same weapons (don't overkill), and engage targets best suited for them(SPAAGs choose bombs or closest weapons, IR choose slow missiles, SARH choose fast missiles and then bombs)

They all prioritise munitions headed directly for them if not cooperating with other AD.
They all fire only as many shells/missiles as expected to destroy a weapon before engaging the next target without delay.

When aircraft get within the WEZ of at least 2 AD units, if they are not occupied with anti munition, they all fire at the same time, at the same aircraft, in order to saturate their target, prioritizing A2G centric airframes.

Aerosentry and CIWS:
1200m/s(not changed), 12s bullet lifespan, 14.4km max range vs non-maneuvering targets.
It no longer has to reload after 50 shells, it fires continuously as long as it sees targets.

Anvil and other slower RoF Flak guns:
I... I guenuinely don't know how to improve those further without breaking realism. If they cooperate with other AD and don't overkill munitions, they're kinda good as is. Maybe have them be slightly more accurate, and I don't remember if they ever need to reload, if they do, remove the limitation.

SAM-IR: (YOU'RE BREAKING THE PLANE SAMIR!)
They gain the ability to burst fire, like planes do. (0.25s delay between launches until tubes are empty)
They can fire up to 45 degrees off-bore while turning in order to minimize engagement lag.

RAM45:
They gain the ability to engage multiple targets if they are grouped tighter than 100-250m (AESA limited TrackWhileScan) (even better if grouping would be calculated as FOV from the radar, but may be more difficult to implement)
Also burstfire if they can multitrack.

R9:
They are fully TrackWhileScan capable. so they track, and fire at, all viable targets. They also burst fire.

[cursive ruin]

The AI already tries to not fire at the same target, thus cooperating, but they fail at that. I think this is because of their instant and simultaneous reaction time, and also because it takes a second or two (depending on the weapon) between a missile getting launched and then starting to track. The info of 'target has incomming missile' should be updated immediately when a friendly has launched its weapon at it, not only when the missile actually starts to track.

[misty jungle]

We may be starting to get some powercreep here with the new weapons and this suggestion

[autumn spoke]

So you think it would be best to nerf the existing player assets to the level of the NPCs instead?

[misty jungle]

I'm not sure, some of the new weapons feel overtuned
particularly tuskos and kingpins

as far as buffs go I think SPAAGs should start tracking targets before they enter their firing range
with faster munitions/aircraft they get blown up by the time the spaag can finish turning

[rose dew]

Air defense is entirely passive until you enter firing range, i think they should actively track targets around them, especially very threatening ones like helos and jets

[misty jungle]

yeah, so that you need to use cover in order to abuse their reaction time

[autumn spoke]

So we can all agree that Non-Player Units SHOULD be buffed, and maybe some player options should be nerfed?

I don't know how to feel about nerfing player weapons further.
But our NPCs sure need some form of buff.

[misty jungle]

i feel like tuskos need a lot more drag so they only remain supersonic for like 20km

[autumn spoke]

Very true, speed and numbers are the most important components of AD penetration.

Tuskos can be fired in at least goups of 4 and they are VERY fast.
AShMs, 99s, and C450s are absolutely obliterated in comparison, not to mention how few platforms can even carry C450s.

I wish all weapons would have their ups and downs based on how many can be carried, and what their cost is.

Isn't it that IRL ballistics are much easier to shoot down than skimmers anyway?
Or is it just that IRL, Stratolance analogues are far more common in conflicts?

Anyways, I wish that weapons would be more balanced both in relation to each other, and in relation to our AD.

Every time I see a Corvette annihilated by a cropduster flown in a straight line I die a little on the inside.

Just look at how powerful ships are in SeaPower, and those are cold war machines...
Think about the fact that the Shard is comparable to a cold war VLS destroyer...
And it's annihilated by a single Cricker with funni rokkits.

[misty jungle]

my suspicion is that ingame skimmers are worse than irl because guns/heatseekers aren't affected by earth's curvature and waves

[autumn spoke]

Wasn't horizon modelling added in the game with Ignus?

Or that was only for radar?

[misty jungle]

shards were in fact VERY powerful on release
or no one knew how to deal with them back then, im not sure which one is true, but they were quite a menace before medusa got added

[misty jungle]

i think its only for radar detection if im not mistaken
the chat cooldown is quite a nuisance

[autumn spoke]

You can simply edit your previous post to bypass it, but it's true that you can't reply as accurately.

Anyways, earth curvature should affect all detection systems so that skimmers stand a chance.

[misty jungle]

yeah i found proof
i kind of wish the curvature was visualized as it doesn't feel intuitive

[odd oracle]

I agree with this post because it's no longer a big whooping moment when you take down key air defences. It's a bit trivial for even mid-level players to take down stratos and shards, and even unescorted destroyers.

It's natural an early access game would flip-flop in balance, in this case between air and air defence. But it's currently too much in the favour of air-power.

[stuck fiber]

the radar horizon almost never matters because aircraft radar will pick up the skimmers on accident

[remote horizon]

This is 100% correct, in its current state ground units do not pose any significant danger to a skilled player, which greatly reduces satisfaction of doing air to ground sorties and also affects how pvp is played (If you focus on A2G you lose). In my opinion ground units should not be so easily spotted unless you fly a specialized A2G/Recon aircraft or have some kind of targeting pod. Since the game takes place in near future settings at least some ground units should be equipped with active defence systems and smoke launchers. Buff is really required here.

[edgy oriole]

I’d argue the opposite- ground scan radar should be a thing for the Vortex, Ifrit, and Darkreach. It’s very much a realistic capability of advanced multirole and strike aircraft.

That said, I’d love to see convoys pop multispectral smoke and utilize EW vehicles to disrupt their signature on ground scan radar and to mess with datalink.

CWIS trucks and ADATs-type air defense units could also help bolster the air defenses of convoys and bases alike.

[thorny flame]

Can also just be players learning the game, what used to be a scary threat is now a minor obstacle

[misty jungle]

we've received the notch indicator, new weapons, jamming pods and missile drag though

[thorny flame]

Yes, and we've learned and improved. Both can be true

[delicate sonnet]

There also was some sort of change in the last update too, I do not find myself pressured by enemy missiles like I used to before it. I cannot put my finger on it exactly, but I find myself just flying into situations that would be guaranteed death before and coming back to base unharmed now.

[edgy oriole]

It’s easier to kinematically defeat them

[surreal mauve]

Yeah, even pre-fire when target soon will be in their zone, tho it probably will significantly buff their performance, if for example linebreaker SAM will be able to fire at Revoker from around 10km, when it going straight at it

[thorny flame]

Honestly that sounds like a good and fair change

[crude drum]

I feel like the simplest change would be to improve missile defense while limiting how much damage can be done at long range in a single pass.

For ground units this would mean more ubiquitous missile defense; perhaps in the form of having more SPAAG and IR AA.

For structures this would mean having defenses that can't just be defeated with piledriver and Tusko spam; perhaps even having stuff dedicated to defeating ballistic missile threats such as them.

Being able to use logistics to repair and replace defenses such as stratolances, hangars, FARPs, and damaged ships would also go a long way to making ground more durable, and make logistics gameplay more vital and interesting.

At its core the problem is what it's always been - planes can kill way too much in a single pass; a single plane loaded with PAB 250s, 125s, AGM 48s, or even 68s can effectively get in and kill off most or all ground defenses and combatants in an area; and the lack of repair ans replacement for a lot of these units means that once those targets are down, the air defense just isn't ever coming back. Laser guidance for Lynchpins and Kimgpins helps, but they're just one of a long list of spammable munitions; and that's before we get to the Tuskos and Piledrivers, which are effectively weapons whose gameplay loop amounts to "take off, release all weapons, land, rinse and repeat till all ground units are dead".

[thorny flame]

What if bases could auto-repair their structures and even replace lost defensive units (boltstrikes, radar trucks), slowly over time. This would also depend on the existing factories or other similar structures which can determine the bases ability to repair and replace.
Going further off topic here but would be cool if that could be part of a larger logistics system where "supplies" would be needed to replenish bases as well

[autumn spoke]

In my opinion, the large carry capacity of the planes is justifiable for 2070s tech, same goes with the high speeds and intelligent nature of the weapons.

But let the Aerosentry kill a 30 lynchpin barrage if fired without cover/spread.

Let the LinebreakerSAM kill the 12 AGM48 barrage headed for it.

Let the Anvil snipe the entire PAB125 load of an Ifrit.

Let that single Shard shut down the entire airspace 15km around itself as it shoots down almost any amount of weapons as long as it has firing arcs on all of them.

Again, let them do this IF the player ISN'T smart.
Force the players into using terrain masking and near supersonic deployment of the weapons.

Have the AD be the minibosses they deserve to be, and have the ships be the raid bosses you need 4-6+ players to deal with, per fleet.

Force the player into using stealth, speed, positioning, cooperation, and smart weapon mixing+deployment to even stand a chance.

Otherwise the gameplay loop around AD will remain "hold M1 to win" which is a massive waste of potential.

[odd oracle]

I think whilst individual units need buffs for sure (although I think the examples given are a bit at the extreme), I think the best approach would be more unit types to create more "onion layers" of defence and continue the trend of different AA units being good at taking out different munitions/attack patterns.

More surface based lasers (of different powers trading with cost and speed) would be an obvious one. ARH SAMs (need vvverrry careful balancing of course, a rare unit I would think). Short range SAMs able to barrage fire (before a reload period) rather than the one at a time model currently. IR SAMs able to hit unpowered bombs at a short range is something I always ask for too, which would help.

This approach also allows more scalability up and down missions, depending on what the designer wishes for - not everything should be based around current escalation/TC

[balmy fossil]

i like this idea, it would incentivize coordinated or at least semi coordinated strikes on large targets

[autumn spoke]

Tl;Dr

Laser AD is a good addition, but I still think we should buff the remaining AD, if not in one fell swoop, in increments.

Indeed, Lasers would be good, but I'd go against adding too many units in the game with overlapping ability, they become a nightmare to balance and maintain as the game develops.
So one or two vehicles per weapon type per faction seems like a good compromise.

The reason why my suggestions are usually more on the extreme end is because I prefer a bracketing method when doing balancing.
Are they too weak? Buff them heavily. Let the players adapt to the new balance, figure out new tactics, then ask them again how they feel.
Are they too strong now? Nerf them, but approximately half of what they were originally.
Rinse and repeat till you get to the mark. Doesn't work for every game/situation, but helps you find the proper balance faster, at the expense of some player frustration.

I do think the game needs multiple system implementations and reworks to work at its peak.
-Logistics and resources (so players can influence NPC spawn rates, and rebuild bases/defenses + build entirely new FOBs if the mission allows it)
-RTS mode (for better strategy and tactics related to ordering players and NPCs around)
-More AD types (Lasers and ARH-SAM primarily)
-Reworked AD (all missile ones capable of burst firing all their tubes, Guns not having to reload, all of them far more capable of hitting a single stream of weapons spammed by one player)
-Mid-mission ship spawing options
-Missile seeker and Countermeasures rework (missiles that endlessly reacquire but can be temporarily blinded and forced into INS by CMs, just enough to be evaded when they are close. I have a different forum post for this suggestion)

Basically the logistics of SQUAD
The basebuilding and RTS controls of BattleZone
And more realistic Seeker/Countermeasure dynamics (more engaging, bias towards kinematic evasion)

Then again, this is far beyond the scope of this suggestion.

[odd oracle]

Yeah I think I'd agree with most of those suggestions, although I think for the game's vision the seeker re-work doesn't fit (hence your separate mod/toggle suggestion). And any talk of putting toooo much effort in RTS mechanics makes me worried about scope creep. A post v1.0 feature if you ask me, and the game shouldn't be designed around RTS as a given.

And from a wider product perspective, doing a swinging dialectic of A/B testing can do what you say, but that player frustration bit can be huuge impact to the growth. Especially as it gets off the ground, if the new players jump in at a particularly painful point of balance, they won't connect to the game(*). Whilst we're going through EA, with significant but not overwhelming content drops every ~3 months, I think it's viable to trickle change for a while yet. Some buffs to existing AA, and laser AA as new content, I think would fix us to where we both want the game in the short term. Might get broken after the next content drop of course (e.g. dedicated ground attack) but the cycle continues

** Hell, I actually refunded the game initially, until I decided to give it another pop when I realised it was literally the only thing that could scatch my itch (that didn't need VR).

[autumn spoke]

I agree with your points, we should take the more careful route with the balancing, I just outlined what the top of the reasonable balance spectrum might look like.

Indeed RTS should never be the full focus of the game, just something basic; go here, attack this, guard this unit, etc. Mostly contextual, single orders.

And about the seeker rework, yeah, we have to see what can be done.
In my opinion, as it stands, a missile is only threatening for a minimum of 2-5 seconds, maximum of ~5-8 seconds, as opposed to IRL missiles which are a kill threat until they fall out of the sky or pass you. I'd like the game to be closer to IRL.
Spamming missiles is useless even IRL, as if you outrun one, you outrun all of them, and same goes with defeating the seekers in a close pass.
But being able to notch a SARH that's 70km out for 2 seconds and then going my merry way is boring compared the alternative of:
Flying for 10-15 seconds, knowing full well the missile is tracking you, waiting for the missile to be within 3s till impact, hitting the jammers, and pulling perpendicular to the missile so it passes you while in INS and harmlessly self destructs behind you.

Every missile becomes a credible kill threat, and most importantly, extra stress for the pilot, adding mental pressure, complicating his strategy, adding to the skill ceiling of the game.

[odd oracle]

I think that would be a great alternative/advanced gamemode, but for the love of god the SARH warning alarm would need logic to only start shouting at you within the last 10km or so! I often notch earlier than I need just to shut that thing up.

I've head lored out in the main game the flares/notching. I just don't think toooo hard about it because then I upset myself (not really). And puts the gameplay at a nice level that is gentle enough to newbies (to the whole modern air combat genre), but has plenty of growth without making top-tier players complete fly-swatters.

I hope the game gets big and modifiable enough you see like 20 servers on normal rules, then about 5 playing on a more hardcore option or two

[delicate sonnet]

ARH is the one that should start beeping at 10km range. SARH can be notched at any range.

[autumn spoke]

The constant track alarm should be toned down if missiles are to track for their whole flight

The f16 beeps once every second with a rather faint tone, as to not be annoying.

To be fair, whether you notch early, or when the missile is close, It's kind of the same to new players.

Once they know how to notch, they'll make do.

And I'm sure they'd love to hear that R9 exploding behind them on their first succesful evasion 😄

[misty jungle]

I think linebackers are currently the saddest as far as air defense goes
they only really threaten chicane/tarantula
the missiles are fine if they get a headstart in the air and the enemy aircraft is moving in their direction, but as a SAM they struggle to catch up anything with the realistic drag

maybe give them the new S2 missiles
and S1 can be given to some faction exclusive IFV and only be used when directly threatened

[autumn spoke]

I remember back when all turrets in the game had perfect accuracy.
They were modelled as if they all had FCS, and had aerosentry levels of accuracy.
God the MBTs were a menace back then :))

But they became Remote weapon stations at some point, and no MBT has ever landed a bullet on me since T.T

[misty jungle]

they're still pretty good at sniping chicanes
i avoid hovering behind hills specifically because of that

[autumn spoke]

I remember that back then I didn't understand what NO was about, so I was mad that I couldn't 25mm the MBTs from 300m without getting shredded.

I'm partly responsible for the change, and I feel like such accuracy on all units, even non AD ones would make more sense with current balance, not to mention that 2070s units may as well have optical FCS on even 12.7mm to deter drones and other small maneuvering threats.

Imagine MBTs getting FCS Flak on their main guns.

And imagine all IFVs having FCS timed fuse shells so they act like mini aerosentries.

[misty jungle]

that sounds quite excessive

[autumn spoke]

I mean, we will see what gets added.
I'm sure that the devs can take away that a buff to our NPCs is desirable, how they go about it is up to them.

And I'm sure they'll do it right! 😄

[meager silo]

Not sure about buff current AA. They are good.
But sure we need MMR-S3 AA

[supple oriole]

when the air defense can't defend air

[delicate sonnet]

Hey, that would actually be something nice to add into the AA mix

[autumn spoke]

Soo let's see:

Convoy of 12 vehicles.
Most are MBTs, one IRSAM and one SPAAG.

Quiz: how many of such convoys can a single plane in NO take down without reloading or ever being threatened?

I'd say around 2 such convoys for any AGR compatible airframe, far more for darkreach.

How many weapons did it take to penetrate the AD?
2 for the IRSAM, 2-3 for the SPAAG

Is this fun or realistic? Blasting them by the dozens with no threat to yourself?

"But wait! You can add boltstrikes! They'll fire at the player! Same with hypothetical S3 launchers! "

Thanks for the tip constructive critic!
They WILL engage the players, but it takes a maximum of 2-3 weapons to distract and kill them as well!

There is so little strategy involved because of their glacial response times, their puny fire rates, and the fact that they all shoot at the same weapon.

I want to be SCARED of them.
A full, triple layered AD of SPAAG, IRSAM, and RSAM should glue me to the deck, and force me to dump EVERYTHING at the perfect time if I want to live.

Think about it this way.

Have you ever taken off from a carrier with a full S1 loadout Chicane and proceeded to nuke an entire barrage of AShMs?
Thats what the LinebreakerSAM ought to be.

Ever took off in a full ARH Revoker and proceeded to nuke the whole bomb load that ifrit just dropped?
That's what the BoltStrike ought to be.

[edgy oriole]

I don't think NO will every have radar SAMs be that strong, Mitch is pretty against oppressive SAMs

[misty jungle]

i'm in favor of buffing ground units but i'm also afraid that the pendulum may swing way too far in the other direction
that and cricket may go extinct

[thorny flame]

The cricket's use of terrain cover and lynchpins basically make it always viable

[crude drum]

They don't need to be oppressive; just replaceable.

Right now, the planes and pilots are easily the most plentiful things out there; AA is rare and irreplaceable, while the pilots and planes are easily replaced.

Flip that script, or at least make AA and other ground assets somewhat more readily replaced (hopefully while making pilots a lot less replaceable) and IMO we'll end up with a better dynamic vis a vis the ground.

[left hatch]

Pretty sure you can increase AI skill level in mission settings to get similar effect, it also cuts down reaction times and increases turret turn rates

[rocky sandal]

What if IR-SAMs had a turret rotation speed buff

[autumn spoke]

Thanks for the info! But sadly, unless I get laser precision turrets by increasing that skill to 100, it's not really helping.

As for my ARH-Revoker-Boltstrike analogy remember, The Revoker is moving at near mach 1 and firing missiles with 120km WEZ (at standstill).
It also has LoS, and Datalink.

Boltstrike has none of this.
15km WEZ
Glued to the ground
Can't multitarget if munitions are spread far apart.
Has turret turn rate, and by extension, reaction time.
Can't fire on datalink alone.

The idea is to make AD absurdly powerful ONLY against minimal effort players.

Is the braindead Ifrit flying in a straight line at 600kmh and 2km AGL and then holding down pickle to spam PAB125s?

TOO BAD, the boltstrike burstfired 12 RAM45s because your PABs are too close to each other and the SARH beam paints all of them.

You flew at mach 1 in terrain cover until you are 3km away and then popped up just to slam him?
He doesnt even get time to react.

This should apply to all AD.
Jam them.
Attack Fast.
Attack from cover.
Blindside them.
This way you bypass their opressive weapons.

They should be player levels of powerful, but have sensor, reaction, and datalink capabilities which are exploitable using positioning, countermeasures, and smart weapon usage. (This goes well with my seeker/countermeasure rebalance mod idea)

Like really, that Ifrit is ready to lob infinite Scimitars and S2s your way, and you wouldn't want a friendly R9 keeping him in check and a boltstrike intercepting his missiles?

Why can players have such busted weapons but the AI has to cry in a corner?

Let them be the shields they deserve to be.
Dangerous, deadly even, but ultimately doomed by their lack of mobility, sensors, reaction time, and altitude.

[edgy oriole]

Radar SAMs should be realistically powerful. And Radar SAMs don’t intercept AAMs, they save their missiles for aircraft and incoming A2G munitions.

It entirely depends on the fire rate, but carpet bombing SAMs should still be viable. 12 PAB-125s thrown at supersonic speed from 2k Ft would absolutely overwhelm a Pantsir, it should not be able to chew through more than 4 alone from that altitude honestly.

The whole point of convoys is layers of air defense. SPAAGs compliment IR SAMs compliment SARH SAMs compliment Stratolances, etc and etc

[autumn spoke]

I totally agree with you!

Proper tactics and strategy (and sometimes just enough spamming) should still annihilate them.
But they should indeed be realistically capable.

Wouldn't RAM45s be more of an anti-everything missile though?
Something that will be fired even at AAMs if a munition truck is nearby?

[edgy oriole]

It doesn’t matter if the missile is capable of intercepting an AAM or not- doctrinally speaking, SAMs don’t give a shit about air to air missiles. They save their valuable explosive telephone poles for actual threats.

I’d say the only exception to this is

1. SAMs/SPAAGs/CWIS explicitly tasked with airfield defense

2. Carriers and their escorts, much for the same reason as #1

SAMs are more focused on killing the aircraft that’s launching munitions at long range so that it stops being a threat, rather than trying to intercept munitions. The exception to this is also ballistic/cruise missiles, for the most part

[misty jungle]

carriers in particular need better defenses, escorting ships always abandon them
even if they are escorted, the attacking ifrit only gets shot down after firing all it's weapons

[elfin forge]

The fact that Boltstrike has only one missile guidance channel is so goofy, when 1991 Tor-M1 has two, and 2016 M2 already has four
This is obviously for balance purposes, and this is why I so badly want more vehicles, to fill that niche of radar SAM weaker than Boltstrike, and make Boltstrike really scary

[edgy oriole]

upping the guidance channels would be a good buff for the Boltstrike. A player would still defend against a single missile, but the Boltstrike would be able to chew through incoming munitions faster. I like it.

[sleek eagle]

Nobody here mentioned HP, it takes ONE LYNCHPIN to kill an APC. It has a 3kg warhead! Really, most of the munitions we have are far too effective, all it would take on that front is upping the armor of the ground and naval units.

[edgy oriole]

uh.. APCs aren't exactly survivable against hydra rockets

[sleek eagle]

huh, well I admit I'm not that well versed in military stuff

that aside that I'm really talking about game balance, and even with laser guidance limiting them they're a bit overpowered, at the same time not really worth taking on anything other than the cricket and chicane

AND please consider this: you have to put a crippling limit on the laser tracking on almost all aircraft mostly because of lynchpins, right? you'd have a lot more room to adjust that if they're not as strong

[proven plume]

If lynchpins couldn’t kill an apc, what units could they kill?

[edgy oriole]

datalink is far more powerful than laser, the laser mechanic was added purely so that lynchpins were more realistic in their employment

[proven plume]

I can see a maneuverability nerf, they seem just a little too agile but…

[edgy oriole]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V092M25KeUA

These are basically Lynchpins

[sleek eagle]

I'm really talking about them killing them in about two shots, maybe more dependent on the angle of impact

[left hatch]

3 kg HEAT is a LOT

[edgy oriole]

clearly they only need one lmfao

[proven plume]

Should also be noted that APCs (at least irl) really don’t have much in the way of armor

[sleek eagle]

okay, I understand now that it is realistic, I honestly had no idea

[edgy oriole]

We're starting to get into the territory of violating one of the core NO rules with artificially nerfing a weapon like this

[left hatch]

In fact it is MORE than 120 mm HEAT shells have, and I'm pretty sure nobody doubt it will OHK something lightly armored like APC or IFVs

[sleek eagle]

I guess, but also: ERA on the tracked vehicles? or would that just be not fun to fight

[left hatch]

You can only do so much with ERA, large enough warhead (not even tandem) will require passive armor behind to properly stop the jet

[stuck fiber]

i think ERA powerful enough to matter versus our smallest missile (lynchpin) could only work on the MBTs (the explosive itself is a concern for more lightly armored vehicles). but I think that's just micromanagement. AD needs to be stronger but i don't think it's important for mostly passive ground units (non AD) to be simulated to such a high degree

[rocky sandal]

Already NERA to contend with, Pins struggle against MBTs frontally

[sleek eagle]

apparently the Israli Namer APC has APS, in NO only tanks have that; maybe a heavier IFV variant with that plus NERA, perhaps appearing later in the match?

[misty jungle]

I wonder what would happen if all SAMs were reworked to be able to fire multiple missiles at once but had long reload times

[delicate sonnet]

But only if they are using that multiple launch for defending against multiple incoming missiles, otherwise, they would just likely be wasted on a single aircraft that can evade them all with the same maneouver/CM deployment.

Aka: SAMs should switch between multiple launch or single launch intelligently.

[meager silo]

You right.
But dont forget about our aircrafts, they are have enough powerful jammer to significantly decrease accuracy radar missiles which incoming.
Don't forget fact about enough good balance will be sams will be enough powerful will be people don't wanna so much fly in AA zone, but not so powerful will be they are destroying aircrafts too easy, or weak... Good balance - key to good gameplay experience and you should find ways reach it