warrior412

Member
  • Content count

    3,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9
medal medal medal

warrior412 last won the day on April 13

warrior412 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,895 Outstanding

2 Followers

About warrior412

  • Rank
    Captain Tenneal

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    "I'm on my way"
  • Interests
    Bombing people on the runway--the only entertaining way to kill landed enemies

Recent Profile Visitors

35,234 profile views
  1. I'll try to remember about that as I coax people in tree aircraft into the grave.
  2. The "finish #1," be victorious 10 times and Supporting Fire tasks are all team based requirements. I'm not exactly fond of them, but you can work through them.
  3. Months ago I recall there was a release from the developers discussing making capture points more authentic by making them up as things of tactical importance (like ammo dumps and other similar things). That'd be another welcome change. I wouldn't mind if the posted "___ team is capturing zone _" be eliminated as well. The indicators on the top could remain, but emphasizing attentiveness and awareness would probably be good.
  4. To me, the lack of direct influence on capture points is enough of a balancing factor to make things appropriate as they are. Even so, I do like some of the ideas I have seen posted. The idea of one side laying siege to an airfield for control of it while the other defends is something that I think could be made into an interesting game mode.
  5. In my own experience, the Tier III Allies have not been so successful when I've opposed them. In many of my Tier III German vehicles, the win rate remains well above 50%, with some stretching to 80%. If you are concerned about the threat of aircraft, it is fortunate that the Axis nations have good aircraft to work with as countermeasures. Late model A6Ms and Bf 109s are good fits for the interceptor bit. SPAAs are also around for Germany (I don't know about Japan's).
  6. Can we see the other side's spreadsheet and battle log too? Also, what were you using?
  7. I would not know, I haven't used PS4 controls myself. The greater SPAA rewards would be a supplement--above and beyond the general increase of gains for ground vehicles that I proposed. I figure that if enough incentive is given, their presence can be increased. As far as lightly armored/open topped ground vehicles and lightly armed aircraft go, I'm not sure much could be done to prevent the latter from hurting the former. By and large, if a vehicle has any top plating it should be able to survive attacks by most anything short or a high velocity heavy machine gun cannon with armor piercing rounds. For open topped vehicles like the M3 GMC, Nashorn and other similar vehicles, there isn't much I think that can be done to eliminate their inherent weaknesses to attacks from above. Provided aircraft are not given free reign to attack these vehicles, the open tops should have decent chances at survival even underneath the aircraft due to other things capturing the fliers' attention. Aircraft spotting is essentially inevitable and cannot be stopped the way I see it--given that it is rooted in player communication more than the sort of vehicle they use. (When sneaking around in my IS-1 on maps like El Alamein and White Rock Fortress, I'd often come up just close enough to the crest to find a fair portion of the enemy team moving through the area. Since I wasn't keen to try 1v4+ odds, I'd often spot for my team and alert them to the enemies' presence, rather than engaging. I see aircraft as being similar). If enemy aircraft are engaging them, they won't really be able to do any meaningful spotting anyway.
  8. It can be intercepted and destroyed by most any fighter above BR 3.0 and is slow enough to be targeted by SPAAs at its BR. Or are you suggesting the AD-2 should face MiG-17s?
  9. The cover and vulnerability to air attack vary with the map. On maps like Abandoned Factory and Stalingrad, cover is such that vulnerability to aircraft weapons is limited. The statistics represent a portion of the playerbase and can be assumed to be a small scale representation of the whole. The nations of the aircraft and tanks involved aren't of terribly high relevance because all of them are integrated, not just one side's or the others'. Reviewing the records of the nations shows that the average death rate hovers around 10% when all nations are looked at. If someone else has more data, I will check into it. Until then, I must work with what I have. I'm not sure the lead indicators could be implemented without markers, but even if they were, they'd just unbalance the game and worsen people's grasp on how to use their SPAAs. (After all, in AB, the LI does not always have your fire hit. If you have 2 calibres of weaponry (like the M15), aiming with one will usually make the other set miss.) Lead indication cannot do what you guys want it to--only experience and learning can.
  10. That'd probably be great, but numbers don't really allow for it. Thus, you must maneuver your tank wisely and exploit cover to avoid air attack. There's always the chance that you'll get destroyed. Heck, a lucky P-26 could evade and destroy a ZSU-23-4 if it was fortunate enough. They are not out of nowhere, citation has been presented: There is a kernel of truth to this. In certain scenarios, (particularly Battle maps), tickets can run close and be decisive. However, this situation is relatively rare and tanks have similar influence (kills are what change the ticket totals, not vehicle type). By and large the 100 ticket intervals are a drop in the bucket compared to the mass shedding that occurs as a result of capture points' ownership. It would be best if your team covered you (if you were unwilling to use an SPAA). There is obviously a hitch to that in involving the team, who may refuse. To satisfy your desire to use the Jagdtiger while still avoiding air attacks, your best strategy would probably be to find a secluded spot to camp in. Occasional movement after successes would probably be wise to ward off revenge bombing attempts. Until there is better data available to me, I must work with what I have. If you have something new, please share it. Having been very new to tanks and beaten up for it at a time, I understand the issue that unknowns pose. That is why I encourage tank only players to explore aircraft--even if only in a very limited manner. Usage can reveal to you weaknesses you can exploit in adversaries' aircraft. I would change several things in GF RB, many of them directly involving aircraft: Raise reward rates to match AFs' (by raising GFs', not nerfing anyone's) Allow pure fighters (aircraft incapable of mounting secondary weapons) to spawn in immediately Bring back the awards relating to cooperation between aircraft and ground vehicles ("intelligence" I believe it was) Make bombs match historical performance Allow tanks to despawn at a capture point/spawn (with some mechanism integrated to guard against abuse at the spawn) Allow weapons loads to be altered at the runway without the SP penalty to retake the aircraft Incentivize SPAAs by increasing their rewards Rework the damage system to award kills to those who dealt the relevant damage and deserved the credit I have many ideas on reforms.
  11. You don't enjoy the defeated being given a helping hand for having lost? I mean, yeah, it's a handout but they deserve that special treatment. The true slippery slope of RB is this pandering to less and less capability.
  12. The existent BR 21 rockets are respectable, though you only get one volley.
  13. Aircraft can only support ground forces in GF RB. They cannot win games on their own. Aircraft cannot interact with the objectives--the capture points. RB GF is focused on tanks. If you deploy adequate countermeasures, even spotting would be difficult for enemy planes to do and vice versa. The idea that aircraft should not be able to attack ground targets, even in the absence of enemy countermeasures, is absolutely ludicrous. If you believe that, you're not in favor of realism. The difference between the tank victimhood crowd and others (including myself) is that the TVC is reliant on their feelings. I deal in facts. Statistics show aircraft kill 1/9th the amount of ground vehicles other ground vehicles kill. That number is miniscule. The idea that it represents a problem is something to laugh off. If you're so concerned about dying, it's probably time to label tanks OP, because they kill 9 times as many tanks as planes do. Japan had very little to do with rocketry compared to the other nations period.
  14. Pretending everything is normal and playing as such usually yields better results than when you stress.
  15. You should not expect to survive if inadequate defenses are all that are around you. Playing boldly with SPAAs is what I have recommended. The inadequacy is not with the vehicles. I don't expect people to always use SPAA, I just expect them to accept the consequences of their choices. You mention my actions and rare first spawns in SPAA. The difference between myself and others is I don't complain when not taking SPAA gets me killed. I accept the occasional death to aircraft. 10 percent is not a big deal for me. Planes are not a problem. Killing 10% of tanks KIA means they do very little. As a tanker and pilot, I understand balance well--certainly better than those who play only one side. There are no serious issues. There are just those who come unprepared and pay for it but refuse to be responsible. If you ignore the threat of aircraft, you heighten its potency. Awareness is crucial. The problem is not I missing their perspective, it's tank only players missing half of the whole story by virtue. They're the ones who need to see other views. WT introduced tanks into a plane game, not the other way around. The concept of combined arms has been very well received as it is unique. Understanding the experiences and statistics that show aircraft are not OP does not mean the objective people "suck in tanks." On the contrary, many such people are excellent tankers because of their willingness to face to realities of the game. The people that are really deficient are those who persist with failed strategies and insist something is wrong as the failures continue to mount. You cast a very wide net--such that you're undoubtedly wrong. Not every tanker who hops in a plane is bad. (Remember, anyone in RB GF must be a tanker to do anything. I never have understood why tankers attack their own so often.) Underestimating your enemies only helps them succeed. As for the rest of this, it's the standard tank victimhood line and, as always, there is no merit to it. Be victorious or accept when you are defeated.
  16. No, just don't ignore half the battle. Not enough people play their SPAAs as SPAAs to judge their effectiveness. More need to play them just to get that metric up. Pilots aren't the ones consistently whining about hows things aren't handed to them freely. The "problems" had are ones players have because of their own decisions and activities.
  17. I would need to know more about them before I could say.
  18. Indicators and markers being given to only some units mean the system was imbalanced, not balanced. The AI AAA was also a problem. It was utterly ridiculous and deprived player SPAA of targets. Perhaps it is also responsible for lulling people into the foolish disregard for threats from the air too. The changes you describe made things fairer and more reliant on player skill. They made the right choices--except in implementing the red chevrons. If a lowly AD-2 goes without being countered, its enemies deserve everything that comes to them. The "problems" being had are people's expectations not being met--nothing more. They expect they can ignore a certain set of threats, until those come and bite them. They get mad, scream "OP!" and here we are. The people having these issues need to face up to the reality that not all failures stem from the game. You needn't stay in some secluded area to be an effective SPAA. Quite the contrary, it's usually best to be fairly close to your tanks to assist them. I have no problems with people not using SPAA. I do take issue with them declining to use it...then complaining about things they could have prevented. All that is is irresponsibility and trying to get the game to compensate for that only damages it.
  19. This was after the change.
  20. Progress takes time. However, there are limits and there really ought to be caps on time spent in FD.
  21. The Russian forces, traditionally moving east to west, would usually have the morning sun at their backs. See above.
  22. During the White Rock Fortress based event the other day, my Pz. III J1 took hits from a volley of RS-82s. Tracks damaged, engine shot out, 2 crew lost and lit afire. I later shot down the same IL-2 as he attacked another Pz. III and repaired without any further incident. RS-132s have been mediocre in my experience, though their limitations are probably exacerbated by their outboard placement on things like the Pe-2s. The rockets on the Fw 190F-8 (I don't recall their name offhand) were rather poor in my experience and certain not as reliable or effective as the 1000kg bomb it can boast.
  23. I realize the truth is a little too much for some people to bear, but that doesn't make it pointless. The reason SPAAs fare poorly is that people rarely use them as SPAAs. As has been stated here, many people outright refuse to use them. Of those who do, many use them strictly as incognito tank destroyers. When people aren't even trying to use SPAA against aircraft, they cannot claim poor performance. That's not the issue. In other words, at ranges beyond the capabilities for each side to engage, they won't. Alright...not sure what you're getting at there. Nice strawman. Unfortunately, it does nothing to refute what I said. Those who do not deploy counters to aircraft have no place to complain about the consequences of their (in)actions. Accept them or make better choices next time.
  24. Whose fault is it that a person succeeds when they are unopposed? It's certainly not their fault if the enemy lets them through. Actually, statistics place the average ground vehicle kill count by aircraft at ~10%--not 33+%. Ground vehicles about 9 times more likely to be killed by other ground vehicles than by aircraft. On average, 1 in 10 deaths in a ground vehicle will owe to an aircraft. The other nine will owe to another ground vehicle killing it. Plane heavy teams are more likely to lose than not. Matches are reliant on how the ground game goes--if the team is mostly in the air, they cannot advance on the capture points they need to in good numbers. This sounds more like an allegation of Russian bias than talk regarding Realistic Battles. Your absolute terms make your statements likely false. At some point, a Western Allied team has defeated Russians strictly by superior handling--thus discrediting your statement that it has never once occurred here as false. I tried them on some Shermans when they were first introduced. They were not terribly impressive (getting only mere "hits") and were certainly not as capable as the 1000kg bomb the Fw 190F-8 boasts. By and large bombs are more reliable than rockets given their ability to kill even with a miss.
  25. Any team that does not deploy counters to aircraft has forfeit their standing to complain about aircraft.
  26. They're BR 2.0 SPAAs, tasked with guarding the spawns...
  27. SP requirements multiply with spawns.
  28. Well put. I cannot understand why so many people feel entitled to a helping hand. If you are defeated, it's up to you to recover from it--if there is to be any recovery. The SP system functions like natural selection: those who succeed may respawn if they die while those who don't cannot do the same (for nearly as long anyway). Being able to read the battle is an important skill that players develop overtime. It dictates the sort of decisions they make in pursuit of winning. New and inexperienced individuals often believe choices made are without meaning and that success or failure are strictly down to luck. While luck always plays a part in everything, there is method to most experienced players' decisions. In time, the newer people can recognize these things as they become more cognizant of how the game works. Destroying the enemy team is an objective in itself, as well as something that does support your teams efforts in its pursuit of the capture points. Your comments here signal a serious misunderstanding of how RB GFs works. A person capturing a point solely for themselves tends to weaken his own team in doing so. They deprive their side of SP (and 100 tickets if they choose to bail out). Any enemy team opposed by a person who does this has likely benefited from the capturer's actions, not suffered. Teams are hurt when people capture points alone. The side that has the capturers tends to lose as they are usually left with fewer people on the ground. As the OP noted, the SP system is regressive and so the high cost paid immediately by the capturer (who has run off with a fair portion of the SP his team might have been able to tap) can possibly cost several of his team respawns should they be killed. Those who think the capturer's adversaries suffer the worst from their actions do not fully understand the consequences their acts have on the capturer's own team. They are frequently major. Often times players do not bring the appropriate tools to counteract threats they will often encounter (and regularly complain about). You can ascribe that to inexperience, slow learning, stubbornness or all three. Either way, when they make their beds and fail, they have no one to blame but themselves. They can take credit for their successes when they have them, but they must own up to their failures when those happen too. Unfortunately for game balance, gameplay and teammates at high tier, not all players at those ranks are experienced or well versed in their vehicles' capabilities. A common issue with the various rank IV tanks involves inexperienced players purchasing their way to vehicles well beyond their grasp. This phenomenon has been seen many times, with the Tiger II SLA, T29 and RU-251 all being effected. Players buy their way to these tanks, often abridging huge portions of the relevant tech trees, only to find themselves woefully in over their heads. Their lack of experience means the tanks' capabilities are of little value to them--they simply don't know how to use their vehicle. As these players are often unaware of the true nature of the issue, believing they can succeed simply by buying their way to high tier, they often mistake the problems they have as being problems with the game, hacks and other similar issues. For the most part, the problems they encounter owe to them simply being in over their heads. The more perceptive of these enthusiastic but slightly overeager players will realize their mistake and train more to be able to use their tanks more effectively and to succeed to greater extents. Others will persist, losing their vehicles hundreds of times to diminishing returns and still not understanding where their problems originate from. Many of the latter group begin to simply resent success and those who have it. It is unfortunate that these players feel this way, but there is little that can be done about it. Their anger toward success stems from their own inability to realize it for themselves. Until they address the issues they face, they cannot break the cycle and so it remains. The true way for how to succeed at high tiers is to learn well at low tiers. You cannot buy your way to success and those that try fail--no matter if they use an M46, premium T-34 or anything else. You have to know how to win to be victorious. If you don't, you won't. Understanding how the game works and how to win in RB is how players can overcome the filtration that the SP system imposes unto players. If they play well, they will have SP to continue. Most players play to win. Also, if nobody cared how well they did, there wouldn't be complaints about anything.
  29. It's a problem with how damage is credited.
  30. How does one find the edges of an invisible wall?
  31. Reworking gains could greatly incentivize teamwork that'd improve gameplay. That's one way to improve coordination between players. These sorts of things are common when AI is given control of things. There are other problems with them beyond this too.
  32. AI is the problem there. Do you know what AI AAA has proven capable of? Check 1:02 onward:
  33. For the most part it is not preferable to be on the outskirts of a map in SPAA due to their range limitations. When I use my own I'm usually fairly close to teammates and am able to cover a fairly decent circle of airspace around me. All of that depends on the aircraft and interception profiles of each sides fighters. In the White Rock Fortress day events (and most of the others that have involved them, Ju 87s were frequently destroyed well before they could even reach the tank battlefield--my preferred strategy was to simply snipe their pilots. I do remember aircraft trying at attacking tanks early on, but usually those guys didn't last long as the people at higher altitude pounced on them. Yes, low altitude-high speed runs are difficult to counter. Fortunately, they are a bit of a double edged sword. Bombing is quite difficult except in circumstances where things are open. Rockets can be easier to line up, but the limitations of time remain. My usual strategy is to just hold fire until I am sure I can attack them successfully. That's very, very doubtful. The important things in RB GFs are on the ground. Any team that went entirely with aircraft would ensure its own loss in doing so. Integrating aircraft and making things truer to the combined arms intentions would likely attract more players to the mode.
  34. Perhaps @Stona or @Smin1080p could answer that.
  35. Planes on attack runs (particularly with rockets) are actually relatively easy marks versus planes doing other things, as they are relatively stable in their path. I have shot down many people doing those when in my Ostwind. A good solution to the issue of air cover would simply be to permit aircraft to spawn in first. Protection would be immediate.
  36. Karelia is a nice map in my opinion. The fact that there are so many alternative paths means you can be really sneaky. It's great when you have a decently fast tank like the Jagdpanzer IV and can get into a good position quickly.
  37. Unfortunately, the Germans, Russians and Japanese tended to have more specialized designs rather than multi-purpose types like the Western Allies' aircraft. It's simply a matter of the historical gearing the aircraft were made with. I've found 1000kg bombs to still be reasonably effective, but yes, the bomb nerf has reduced planes' limited effect on battles that much more. Last night while pursuing the event tasks, I managed to survive 3 or 4 bombing attempts without even trying. 250kg bombs straddling the tank and the worst I suffered was a slightly discolored track. My exposure to rockets hasn't been as regular, but I have survived the ones that have hit me. It depends on the SPAA really. The M15 is a notably poor SPAA but vehicles like the Ostwind are simply excellent.
  38. The time limits on matches would make that rate either very limited or excessive.
  39. Depends on the map type. There's a beautiful sniper's nest that overlooks B and the pathways to A when it's domination or center cap Conquest. Knowing how to use that is great, especially when in things that have to stay concealed.
  40. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the issues of invisible walls. Invisible walls messing people up cannot be overcome by any amount of experience, as you cannot know their edges. As far as the optics went, both gunner view and third person view showed nothing visually. There was not supposed to be anything there, and yet there was. Inexperience has absolutely nothing to do with it--especially since I and many others who have suffered as a result of this problem are highly experienced. It's a flaw in some maps' features, nothing more. Yes. The real issue with the invisible walls is that their material being extends further than it would seem visually. This is why you can occasionally snag on unseen objects (this is common on maps with lots of ground debris like Stalingrad).
  41. That sort of sniping isn't the kind of thing that bugs me, it's the invisible walls that eat your shots that are really aggravating. Last night I was in the event on Stalingrad in my Pz. IV. I spot a T-34 a little ways around a corner who hasn't appeared to notice me. I move forward just enough (seemingly) to peak and see his hull in my crosshairs. I shoot, but despite visually being clear, the shot blows up on the building right in front of me. Things went downhill from there.
  42. As I recall, the only round that's really suitable for higher tiers with the Pz. IIH is the APCR round. The APHE is rather milquetoast.
  43. Lots of people are very slow learners and will persist with poor strategies, despite their failings. The best way to get your teams to work together is to use the map marking and auto-calls, as those take out the language variable for the most part.
  44. If you don't at least contest the air (nevermind control it), you can expect the enemy to come to dominate it. I really think you misspoke on that--though lots of people would approve I am sure.
  45. I've worked out some decent games with high boosters, though it's been a while since I used any. I'll look for screenshots later. So that is why my computer occasionally dies. Gotcha Gaijin.
  46. How many SPAAs were on your team? I have read scads of articles on the topic. HVARs were noted to be launched considerably closer to the target that the 10 mile figure you previously asserted. Best that you do a little reading.
  47. I never said that. I said killing planes was possible, not easy. That is completely different and we all know that. If you were doing that, I doubt we'd hearing from you about "OP planes! " Also: success is something most people aim for. There are ways to get there, but deriding success and glorifying failure isn't one of them.
  48. Events are far rarer nowadays than they used to be. All but eight of the vehicles on the list in my signature were obtained through events.
  49. I've managed a few snapshots on P-47Ns doing rocket runs with the Jagdpanzer IV, but never the Hetzer.
  50. Yeah, killing two planes with a KV-85 is totally routine. C'mon...
  51. The last vehicle used determines application.
  52. I was pretty happy about that kill--but I still enjoy that 2 air kill KV-85 match more. That was something I am particularly proud of.
  53. Speaking for myself, I don't think planes are perfectly implemented, I just think they are adequately countered based on my personal experience. I realize that not everyone shares in that sort of experience, but I also know that I wasn't always of this opinion either. Time and experience in tanks shaped me to think this. Your experiences will tend to improve with time if you allow these things to shape your view and approach to things. When I am in cover and hear aircraft about, I do my best to stay secluded. If I am on the move and see them headed for me, I usually feign ignorance and make like I am continuing on--then slam on the brakes. This usually gets them to miss and if you execute it at exactly the right time, you can do it late enough to get them to fire and early enough to miss. You can make their run all for naught with timing. If you're in the open and not able to move much, you just have to hope things go your way. Given that I have the ZIS-43 and Ostwind to work with, I will be protecting other tankers from aircraft soon.
  54. I suspect my experience was caused by a 1000lb as well. (I never checked it in replay and I was lucky enough to have not stopped to find out (continuing to accelerate rather than stopping was all that had saved me)). I do not know the range I was at, but I suspect it was no more than 3 meters behind me when it detonated. I was lit afire and hurt badly (I don't remember exactly what it was, but engine, tracks and one crewman). It was pretty minor damage for me, as I had FPE and parts (and maybe the spare crew module, though I didn't use it if I had had it). That IL-2 I shot down didn't have a pleasant day after he failed to instagib me. 1 potshot with the main gun as he tried his luck on another guy (to no damage I was aware of) and the IL-2 was down. To be honest, besides the above, I can hardly recall the last time I was rocketed. When I am attacked from the air, it's usually bombings so rockets are a bit more rare to me.
  55. Aircraft killing other aircraft function like SPAA--they are counters to enemy aircraft. If you exclude them in the figures, then you cannot use aircrafts' figures anywhere else. You must include everything to have a full view of what goes on. Good aircraft will tend to do well. Those aircraft probably will do well because people who use them will hone their skills in them regularly and do better. Balancing them is a function of BR, nothing more. A simple fix to that is to allow aircraft to spawn immediately. Then fighters could be up to cover ground forces right away. Diversifying is one way to make it--I am sure there are others. As I have said, simply hiding out and keeping inconspicuous or keeping mobile are other ways to dodge attacks. As far as being vastly awarded, that isn't really so. As you noted, you have to game the system to even get into an aircraft. You have to have made it to a certain point to enable you to get access to aircraft--nevermind success in them. Aircraft do not instantly kill things by appearing after all. I realize that you're probably being a little hyperbolic intentionally, but for reference, I have gotten to 4300 or so in some of my heavy tanks. SP yield becomes excessive when it exceeds a person's needs. As far as I know, the differences in yield are tied to scoring. I'm afraid that's not so. The fact that aircraft die more than they kill stands.
  56. Under the statistics last I looked, more planes died to ground vehicles (likely SPAA) and planes than ground vehicles to aircraft. I'm not sure how can you claim there to be a higher K/D when more on average die to countermeasures than kill. The statistics showed ground vehicles kill 900% more ground vehicles than aircraft do. I am glad that you acknowledge my fairness in how I've handled this, as I have remained objective. Some people are just unwillling to face the fact that aircraft are not overpowered. Resorting to personal attacks just shows you have no argument. You know that you have no rebuttal I suppose.
  57. If you understand averages, you'd understand the meaninglessness of your occasional excellent matches in aircraft. Ultimately, and on average, aircraft don't do nearly as much as tanks.
  58. You cited it as a fact until even you couldn't defend it. Only after being called out did you admit it was simply comical. Your knowledge of HVARs is evidently insufficient to judge their accuracy.
  59. The rare good game does happen. That's how the average stays where it does.
  60. I understand the "issue" and I know the solutions to it. That others choose not or refuse to use them is nobody's fault but their own. That's all there is to it. People can deny that, but all they are really denying is responsibility.
  61. Yeah, intelligently going through things with detailed explanations is trolling. I guess you do not understand how explanations should be formatted either. ...yet you repeat the same behavior and wonder why consequences come. Learn from your experiences rather than denying them.
  62. People can choose to ignore the usage of existent solutions if they wish. However, they really should dedicate themselves to issues that have no solutions on hand like poor rewards for ground vehicles than combined arms in combined arms battles.
  63. I don't exactly agree with your view of things, but I do respect that you have the maturity to lay out your ideas rather than resort to simple namecalling and other childish things. As far as balancing goes, I think it's a player skill that must be honed and that adding some artificial element will only prevent that learning.
  64. Kendolph, are you gonna whip out the laughable "HVARs were launched 10 miles from the target" joke again? C'mon, even you admitted that was fake. Do you know what type of bomb it was and what range it was at? The closest experience I've ever had was a US 1000lb bomb rattling my Jagdpanzer IV as I drove away from ground zero. My TD was hurt, but not destroyed. Replays have a nasty habit of being slightly off. You can see this manifest when people take shots through the ground and succeed. (Server side is probably the best place to look, since that's where things really happen.)
  65. The Mathilda's model being in such early stages that they could not release an image of it was an early indication. It's probably for the best that we wait, lest glitches in it and the other event prizes.
  66. Most likely before the end of the event series or just afterward. Focus on getting the achievements done, as having them in your dossier is what matters.
  67. 1 in however many potential prizes there are on the roulette wheel. (Talismans are generally worth more anyway, SL is cheap.)
  68. Time spent in a match is time not spent in a queue. If Gaijin wants to emphasize quantity rather than quality, small maps are the ideal way of bringing quick paced matches that get you back to the queue as soon as possible.
  69. That is an opinion, not a fact. Provided there are only two rockets fired at your Panzer IV, there is a good chance that they will either miss or hit the engine deck (which is usually survivable). As far as the four launches go, rockets launch in pairs. As you said, US aircraft usually possess 6 rockets and the Brits 8. That means 3-4 launches for those aircraft, as the rockets go off in pairs. If the T-34 was just inside a building, I'm not sure why killing him would be a surprise. I figured you were describing rockets through the roof; that'd be a bug. I'd test this, but the latter condition of not having enemy aircraft to worry about is rarely available. By the time I am in an aircraft (if I ever get into one), the enemy tends to have planes I have to address.
  70. Interference is about all you can do with the M.C. 202 absent fires and pilot snipes. Bredas are horrid.
  71. SPAAs in the Africa event are needed--especially since the Italo-German forces have only the milquetoast M.C. 202.
  72. I don't think either of these things are true (the latter because of your citation of ~6.7 BR).
  73. You don't. That's the problem.
  74. I usually leave mixed matches so I rarely see evasive ground attack pilots anyway.
  75. Do you have a specific Spitfire model in mind?
  76. Aerial attacks by planes were what they executed; I'm not sure why that surprises you. Aircraft do (did) not have to make themselves vulnerable to make attacks. It was possible in real life and in game, but it's not advisable. I play Germany quite a lot actually--Pz. IVs are some of my favorite tanks and I am in them regularly. The number of rocket salvos Allied aircraft can fire is generally four at max (for Germans even fewer usually), so the luck that they will run out and you can survive is quite good. What you mention about capturing points is true--but when the entire enemy team is alerted to your presence somewhere, what do you expect? The T-34 story you shared sounds like a bug with the terrain and hopefully you submitted it to the tech mods. The 1 in 10 deaths figure is not my own (though my personal loss rate is very close to this at ~1 in 10-12.5), it is the average loss rate those seen by the OSS logs have suffered in the scores of matches they've seen. 10 percent is not a major contribution and it certainly isn't excessive. I have played RB GF long enough to see that surviving aircraft can be done with reasonable success. People can either try that or they can continue to allow themselves to be killed. Either way, Gaijin will probably not change things at their behest.
  77. It's random as far as I know. I've had matches where I've been wiped out immediately and been given the trophy. In addition, the roulette wheel itself is an illusion. While it spins, the result is already know.
  78. You could increase repair costs, though to those of us with tons of SL, that's minor.
  79. I don't think mixed battles can really save you from enemy attackers. Enemy fighters coming to hunt you down will probably succeed in finding you regardless of it being mixed or not.
  80. I would have to look into this--that sounds very suspect.
  81. It'd still be far easier for tanks to get to repairs than aircraft. If it takes a minute or two for tanks to drag their stricken comrades to capture points (the rope being another thing aircraft lack) but it takes an aircraft 30 minutes to make it to and from their base regardless of damage, there's a rather obvious bias at play. If your ground forces have even a good anti-aircraft gun (as US tanks tend to), nevermind a dedicated SPAA, you should be able to down an aircraft that is making itself vulnerable. Playing both planes and tanks extensively has given me a view few others have seen for themselves. As with most other experienced people, I understand that the problem is essentially contained to the players involved, with luck being the other major player in results. There is no reason why others cannot replicate the survival success that I have had in my own tanks; I have not been doing anything extraordinary to make it as I do. I will continue to stick to the facts. The statistics show the truth; this so-called issue is simply an illusion. I urge you to embrace the facts and heed my advice; you'll fare better for it.
  82. I had a match in the event last night where about half my team had moved to spawncamp one of the enemy spawns. This didn't upset the enemy team too much since they had 2/3 caps. Spawncampers who ignore the objectives usually spoiler the game for their side more than the other's. That team ended up being victorious, but not as a result of the camping. Another Sherman and myself cleared a couple enemies and the B point while A was also cleared and taken. Meanwhile the enemy team wiped out about half of the campers. It was kind of just to see those who had nearly lost the game for us lose themselves.
  83. I think you're probably being a bit optimistic as to what 1 person can do.
  84. That's a rather ambitious plan.
  85. I pointed out the flaws with your reasoning regarding the subject matter, which is on topic. Try again.
  86. Laughable. You have no rebuttal or defense for your claims, so you turn to calling for censorship. Why bother taking part in a forum if you cannot handle discourse? In fact, I have said no such thing. I have only pointed out that your reasoning against smaller maps is flawed. I have said nothing about what I think of map size in RB.
  87. Considering how unwilling they are to permit people from opting out of mixed battles in RB AFs, I doubt they'll ever offer anything similar to that here. Remember, with those mixed battles the matchmaker is deciding to throw everyone together rather than waiting a few more moments to put together a conventional match.
  88. Queue times.
  89. What distortion is there? I explained the very real effectiveness of SPAA on small maps. Because the area relevant to tanks is small, it is easier for SPAAs to provide cover for forces there than a larger area. To attack ground forces, aircraft must pass over/approach the small area. The likelihood of them coming into range of an SPAA is far greater than it would be on a larger map. I mention SPAA because some people seem to forget about them on a daily basis.
  90. Because AAA has already been buffed to rather absurd levels, your last statement has been standard practice in RB AF since October 2015.
  91. I posted the video to show is that a projectile will not tend to follow any imparted curve by the launcher once it is separated from that launcher. (Gravity and wind are not the launcher, nor why I cited the video).
  92. Obtained a P-38L talisman the day before yesterday. Given that I need to upgrade my P-38L, a talisman is certainly nice.
  93. Precisely. This has already been tested in other venues and verified:
  94. I don't cap and fly, I spawn in my tanks and wipe out enemy tanks. The ability for people to use their vehicles is not a gltich, it's gameplay. Gaijin will not change anything related to this because the problems you experience with this are L2P issues and nothing more. If you adapted to the actual conditions of the game rather than your ideas about how things should work, you do a lot better. Facts are a better basis for decisions than feelings. I'm not terribly moved by this suggestion or others, as they're just suggestions. I do point out the flaws in them if I notice the potential for any. As far as your "tanks only" mode goes, you really ought to give it up already. On at least three occasions that idea been rejected as unlikely by Gaijin speakers. It's time you own up to the reality that your dream will probably never be. This is false. Larger maps would be disadvantageous for many vehicles. Those that are slow but do not have particularly good long range capabilities (or are prevented from using them by terrain) would suffer in such conditions. On a large but open map, flankers would have increased difficulty sneaking about to getting into a workable position for themselves. Portraying larger maps as a panacea for all problems is simply dealing in falsehoods. Big maps would have their merits--but not everyone would benefit from them.
  95. A few airplanes would not kill off the mode. On the contrary, it'd likely benefit from embracing its combined arms ideals.
  96. I did not invent the tank victimhood myth. I cannot do anything about the claims' lack of merit. I have not said my statements cannot be challenged, but I have discredited the attempted refutations because those also lacked merit. I'm sorry that the tank persecution bit is weak, but it's not my albatross.
  97. Deprives you of a little income and whatever you put in to engage them. Bailers are, by and large, petulant children who become uncontrollably upset when defeated--so they bail.
  98. You said others offered you lame advice to cure the L2P issues you've faced. I rebutted your claim, pointing out the advice was good. Your laughable talk of Oz is amusing, particularly given your tendency to make like everyone's melting in the face of the big, mean aircraft attacking you. I once told you not to let anyone tell you you don't have a sense of humor. I hope you remember that, as it still holds true. Perhaps soon Gaijin will level the playing field and force tanks to make the same sort of trek for repairs that aircraft must. Things would be more equitable then and the game better for it--though I seriously doubt you are truly interested in either of those things.
  99. If you evaded aircraft half as well as you do questions, you wouldn't get bombed so much. Again, do you blame aircraft for all the ills of RB GFs?
  100. Queue times would be shorter if the matchmaker stopped sending people off into silly mixed battles and just waited for enough people for legitimate battles.
  101. Haha, right. You know, the maps being smaller means your SPAA cover has a better chance of covering your ground forces--but let's ignore that fact since it doesn't mesh with the myth of tank victimhood. Seriously, is anything that is wrong with RB GFs you don't blame on the mean aircraft?
  102. "Really lame advice" lol. The advice myself and others have given is effective and easy--but it's not a handout and that's why you cannot stand it. It doesn't pamper you and you feel cheated by that. Work for success, don't expect it to be given to you. You are not entitled to it. Just accept some personal responsibility for once and fess up to it being your responsibility to ensure the survival of your own vehicle. Or are you going to say that is your enemy's purpose? Harsh? More like comical. The tank victimhood crowd is still obsessed with being handheld--that's all that's been shown. Pursuing handholding rather than better handling and the results that follow that handling only prolongs the TVC's suffering. That they continue to vie for handouts in spite of the harm to themselves is good for laughs. That fondness of being coddled is why the TVC fares so poorly. They have it rather easy as it is and want things even easier, so when things get harder they simply don't have what it takes to make it. The issue lies squarely with them, nothing else.
  103. I'm sure you would, but that'd just end up as biased toward tanks as the current repair system is. It would allow tanks to be able to be dragged to capture points and repaired within a few moments' while planes would have have to fly further and farther (something you haven't explained how could be done on GF RB maps anyway) to repair even when undamaged. Anti-aircraft fire did not shoot down every aircraft they saw within seconds. I'm afraid you're just buying into another myth. If tanks were forced to manage their way to reparations somehow after being damaged, it would only be the same as what aircraft face. Considering that tanks are tougher and usually aren't as vulnerable to the weapons of aircraft below a certain caliber, conditions would still favor their survival regularly. This change would bring fairness, nothing more. Only a few people have turned up to bring up the tank victimhood line, and they're mostly the ones who peddle the tank victimhood myth. In the meantime, many users have related to you the same solutions I have and have given you comparable advice in this thread on how to live and thrive. The users who understand that good results need good handling have told you the same things I have. As @Xogo said: People with a vested interest in change for their gains to be realized, as the tank victimhood crowd is in this case, are in numbers not representative of their real support. The number of people decrying aircraft are not representative of the true numbers of players who exhibit such holdings. I am in ground vehicles more than aircraft. There is plenty of time for the planes (which you guys curiously allege are everywhere all the time) to bomb me...and yet that doesn't happen. 1 tank death in 10 is an average. What makes this average what is it is is players playing well enough to where they are bombed fewer than 1 time in 10 deaths and what enables that to happen is good handling. As far as planes' limitation on payloads goes, you are correct. Aircraft have very limited capability to wound ground forces. The threat they pose has been highly exaggerated. The statistics show that the "slaughter" bit that the TVC pushes is pure fantasy. It simply doesn't happen except when aircraft are opposed by terribly incompetent ground forces who make themselves targets (by grouping up exceedingly tightly for instance).
  104. This is the wrong forum section to make suggestions in and including some of these ideas would likely generate noticeable resistance from RB players.
  105. I'm approaching 5.7 in the German and Russian trees (I have up to 6.3 roughly in each, but I've not used anything past 5.7 yet). I understand the differences that come with tiering, but the Hetzer is definitely a notably bumpy tank up to that point for players. As far as how I view it retrospectively, I think the Hetzer was manageable, but it required more dedication than most other vehicles I had encountered up to that point. I expect more of the same as time goes on and that's alright. It comes with the territory.
  106. With time and experience, your results will tend to improve. Progressing to a higher level is meaningless on its own because your enemies will have made a similar transition. If you are bringing out the T-34 1940 and Yak-9T together in a mode like RB GFs, you are hurting your chances at success. This is because the Yak-9T is at a substantially higher battle rating (4.3) than the T-34 1940 (3.3). As a result of matchmaking tolerances, your BR 3.3 T-34 1940/BR 4.3 Yak-9T could very well be facing BR 5.3 vehicles. Transition into the new level, but don't expect anything revolutionary and especially positive in nature. When you first surface in a new place, expect that you'll likely be the little fish in the big pond.
  107. So to be clear, it's already broken and you acknowledge this, but you want to make it even stronger? Safe landing and repair should not be guaranteed by anything except good handling by the player. The only viable solution to AAAbuse is to get rid of the AI AAA.
  108. I disagree about the second bit. In my experience, using aircraft like the early IL-2s, rockets are good to retain for the chance to try using them on light targets (like open top TDs) and often times enemy bombers. For aircraft that are fairly lightweight, or just not keen to spend too much time behind a bomber, rockets are a good way to deal the killing blow. By and large they are worth taking.
  109. Something to add alongside other nations' similar weapons. Expanding payloads on existing vehicles is something Gaijin needs to invest some time in.
  110. You aren't of much use in protecting your ground forces if the enemy kills you. So you usually have to kill the enemy fighters first before other targets when they're around.
  111. The importance of air kills definitely depends on the targeted enemy aircraft. Some just aren't much of a threat to begin with. I remember a memorably excellent dogfight I had in my He 112B-2/U2 facing a Spitfire Mk. I several weeks ago. After a good 2 or 3 minutes of fighting, I shot him down. Despite its excellence, that fight and its result was probably not nearly as important to my team as my previous elimination of the same player's Hurricane Mk. IV (boasting rockets) was beforehand. The Spitfire Mk. I and He 112B-2/U2, lacking secondary armament and large guns as they do, were not much of a threat to either team's ground forces even alive and without opposition.
  112. I remember one match on Frozen Pass, after killing something like 6 tanks in my Pz. IV F2, I got into my Fw 190A-1 to clear the skies. I ended up shooting down something like 3 or 4 incoming aircraft (only 1 ever got over the tank battlefield), yet the friendly tankers in chat were upset I had brought an aircraft that couldn't mount bombs. They seemed blissfully unaware of the aid aircraft had brought them just by fighting other aircraft.
  113. I am not opposed to tanks having the ability to return to their spawn to repair--though it would be necessary for measures to be taken to prevent them from simply spawncamping in their own spawn. (Perhaps despawning could only be done at a capture point or something like that). Not being able to regularly do something it was meant to do is not something being underpowered. That's like saying a P-26 is underpowered because it cannot bomb out the enemy runway as fast as a B-29. SPAA, friendly aircraft and cover do exist at high tiers. The longer people resist embracing these things the longer they'll suffer. Evidently you didn't understand what I wrote. What I said was that I kept behind my tanks in the area they had brought under our control. As they advance or retreat, the area that my team can call its own changes. I stated I kept within the turf that my own teammates have claimed, as anyone hoping to use an SPAA and live would. Doing things this way allows you to keep close to your tanks while remaining safer than you would charging out ahead of them.
  114. Given the proneness of AI elements to abuse (case and point Airfield AAA in RB AF), I'd suggest a different solution: let people spawn in whatever they please at the beginning of matches. The ability to bring any sort of vehicle you like would eliminate this issue in one stroke.
  115. On maps like Battle and Break, teams have home capture points provided from the beginning. On Domination maps, there is usually at least 1 capture point immediately taken by each side (if there isn't they're in trouble for reasons beyond getting damaged). Conquest is the only map type where this even becomes relevant. Aircraft having to capture the enemy airfield to obtain repairs? Now there's comedy. AAA is operated by the AI and even if you somehow do make it past that, there is literally a mechanic that labels your aircraft as having surrendered should you touch down and stop as would be necessary to repair. Aircraft repairs are done at the friendly base, as is reasonable and there is no justification for changing that. There is a simple reason why aircraft kill more tanks than tanks kill aircraft: tanks aren't meant to kill aircraft. That is the job of SPAA and other aircraft. The statistics for the latter two show more aircraft are killed by these counters than ground vehicles by aircraft. Incorrect. Playing well is the easiest solution, as it brings success and prevents losses. Barial, you can continue parroting off your silly theories all you like, but the facts show you're simply wrong. KV-1s, Panzer IVs, IS-1s and the SU-152 are not speedy tier I tanks. They are imposing vehicles with mediocre top speeds and substantial profiles. Avoiding and surviving aerial attacks in these types relies on smart handling. Fortunately, if you make an effort to try to survive, there's a good chance you will. If only more people would do that, rather than caterwauling about how "it can't be done!"... Provided you position yourself within your team's territory, you can generally have good chances at living and being able to focus your attention elsewhere. Most of my deaths in SPAA owe to ground vehicles getting an excellent sniper shot, breaking through our lines or just late game deaths while trying to save the match from an imminent defeat. Aircraft probably represent the source of less than a quarter of my SPAAs' deaths.
  116. Being able to have anything and everything repaired absolutely anywhere is not realistic. That's what tanks have. (I did not say tanks should not be allowed to repair, I said that it'd be equal to aircraft's situation if tanks were forced to have to get to capture points to repair.) As I've mentioned, I think tanks can keep the arcadey repair system that they currently have, but tankers should just acknowledge that it is highly beneficial to them to have it. If they continue to strive for ever sweeter deals, they may lose the nice one they have now. False. In that sort of situation, you will usually be denied a repair, as the damage is considered too critical. That's the difference between aircraft and tanks (not to mention you'd have to get to the airfield to get even that much.) Commute size stems from Gaijin fitting it to the map, nothing else. It's no different from when a tank moves back from the front line to the friendly capture point. That could well be what you'd have to cope with if the repair system in GFs now was abolished and replaced by a need to get to capture points to repair. If the repair system was abolished, it'd be equal. No player would have any advantage over anyone else except if he was not wounded. The "absurd excuses and awkward solutions" rolled out in this thread are as they are because people are trying to rework a mode in defiance of its intentions and players' desires, strictly because a few people find it too hard to survive as things are. 1 tank death in 10 owes to aircraft--that's it. That figure doesn't exactly fit the story of planes being OP clubbers slaughtering the masses. A fair solution is to simply handle one's tank better, keep yourself either concealed in physical cover or fire cover or, if no cover is available, keep mobile to make attacks on you more difficult. By seeking to avoid all threats, I've kept my own death rate to aircraft about the average/slightly lower. If you try to avoid death, you probably can. I rarely take SPAA out on my first spawn but interestingly, I rarely suffer for this. I am seldom bombed once (perhaps once every ten or so spawns, and even that could be high balling it), so I do not see aircraft as a particularly big concern because for myself they haven't been. I take my tank were I want to go and go from there; aircraft rarely pose an interference. When I do use SPAA, it usually involves keeping fairly close to my tanks and keeping observant for aircraft. When they can be heard or seen, I wait until I am in effective firing range and fire at them. I've scored many kills by allowing the attackers to be lulled into thinking there was no SPAA opposing them. There's no real need for that. One or two more guys in SPAA assisting someone who performs like you did in your Coelian would be sufficient to provide good air defense. 3 guys out of 16 would not constitute the abandonment of tanks.
  117. Sounds like it's time people put serious work into the SPAA modification grinds. There are apparently ample opportunities.
  118. The P-39K is 1000 GE and the I-153P is something like 900 GE. The P-39K is basically just a repainted version of the P-39N variant in the US tree (sans secondary weapons)--it may be worth testing the free US variant in combat to see if you like it. The I-153P is basically a Chaika with cannons and a stiffer matchmaker. (The Soviet P-39N is excellent, but it is rarely available for sale.) The Japanese Bf 109E-7 is nice (I believe it's 1000 GE) and the Japanese Fw 190A-5 is also excellent. Obviously these can be tested in the German tree. (I mention the latter because with a lucky discount you can obtain it for under 1000 GE). I personally obtained both for 938 GE total after getting 50% and 75% discounts for the two. As someone who has been around for many years and not been terribly keen to rush into these things myself, I can only counsel people to thoroughly investigate and research prospective purchases before going ahead with them. That usually does the best for you in understanding what you've bought and how it'd work.
  119. Any specific nation in mind?
  120. While I am not hit by aircraft terribly frequently, the usual times where I've died to the aircraft that have rocketed me without even a chance at reparation is when they have used Tiny Tims that have landed within 3 meters or so of me. In most other cases (I'd say maybe a half to a full dozen instances with other Allied rocket types) I tend to at least get parts repaired if not restored fully before/without dying. Just the other day on the event in White Rock Fortress (I forget what the stylized name of the event was), I was attacked by an IL-2 boasting RS-82s while in my Pz. III J1. He made one pass and fired his rockets at me. This cost me one set of tracks, 2 crewman and my engine. Despite this damage, I was able to begin repairs immediately. A teammate sought to assist in towing me, though I shooed him away (both because I could not move anyway and I didn't want to make both of us targets). About 25 or 30 seconds after the attack on myself, the IL-2 had circled back and attacked the helper teammate. (I am not sure if my teammate was hurt or not). After he passed over my teammate, the IL-2 continued flying on at a fairly shallow angle and--captive as I was still waiting for my tracks and engine--I shot at the IL-2 to pass the time. 1 50mm APHE hit damaged the IL-2 critically and he was soon downed. I got back underway a little while later, eventually running into the IL-2 player who'd taken to a tank. Admittedly, just one instance--though it has been my only rocketing in the past week--and it was non-fatal. I feel happy for you. You've proven (to yourself if no one else) that SPAAs can in fact be effective, despite previous doubts. Congratulations. The 4 minute window sounds like an improvement too--that's about twice what you said it's usually been. Your words, not mine. The RB GFs economy is horrid. That isn't even up for debate, it's well known and pretty much everyone acknowledges GVs should be given more. The economy there should be comparable to AFs'.
  121. Oh yes, I'm sure the repair mechanic is very realistic. I have not said that access to aircraft should require death and respawn. It shouldn't.
  122. Had an I-185 bail on my P-40 many moons ago. It was rather pitiful.
  123. I never said it was easy, I said it was an option. So friendly fire results from poor coordination between forces...and that coordination is absent in War Thunder. Pretty sure you're missing something in your post. Blue on blue happens and I don't deny that. I have no issue with it being possible because it should be possible. As it stands currently, it's possible. How's that? By being tolerant of the arcadey repair system? I am well aware why they do it. Poor guys cannot handle the truth. No answers and no argument, just a feeling of entitlement to have things easier.
  124. It was you who said there was no coordination and mentioned radios, not I. I simply mentioned that you were wrong in that there was coordination and that radio communication did occur. Where did I say anything regarding blue on blue?
  125. Grant kills based on witnessing the bailout of the pilot.
  126. Panther wasn't wrong--and neither was I. Radio coordination did occur and though limited, it played its part. More approximative methods were also used as well as just plain old independent visual targeting. If you want to talk about people not acknowledging errors, try the guys who use the same failed strategies over and over, resulting in them dying to bombs perpetually. There's a story.
  127. The sentiment that there was no coordination was wrong. The methods involved and used are a less conclusive case.
  128. There were other methods of communication complimenting radio too--such as smoke markers. Approximative, but communicative nonetheless.
  129. Wrong again. Liasons between ground and air forces did bridge the gap between the two and aid in coordination. The fantasy is to suggest otherwise.
  130. Fair enough. As I said, here is the wrong place to make a suggestion since it's not really actionable--but I think you know of that already.
  131. Something for the suggestions section. There may be a bit of the problem with restricting vehicle choice like that when there are users who have premium time on though.
  132. All that your response shows is you want the disadvantages of realism imposed upon everyone but you. The current repair system allows you to repair even the most egregious damage anywhere you lay--be it in a friendly capture point or the enemy's spawn. For comparison, if an aircraft is damaged, it must limp to a very specific place and make a soft enough landing to persuade the persuade the great Snail to allow it to repair. If you're lucky, you'll get repaired. If not, say goodbye to your vehicle--your effort to save it was in vain. Because of the repair mechanic, tanks must be killed outright or they can come back to life like any B movie zombie, usually inside 2 minutes. As a result, the effectiveness of weapons that damage but do not kill is lessened. If you don't kill the target before you run out of suitable weapons, your efforts will likely have been all for naught. He'll repair for a few moments and then roll away. Also, let's remember the truth about this: tanks are not defenseless. It's just that a lot of tankers allow themselves and their teams to be defenseless. They are willful players in their own demises. The continued assertion that tanks face horrid conditions with aircraft is patently ludicrous. Tanks have better chances at surviving damage and are killed by aircraft relatively rarely (~10% of the time). They are not victims of anything. If they did that, bombs would actually perform as they should rather than being meek firecrackers. Tanks could be rendered combat ineffective by attacks they pick themselves up from in a moment's time now. If aircraft were given their historical capabilities with the tanks' arcadey repair system gone, tankers would look back on today's times wistfully--wishing they'd appreciated how well they had it now. ------ As I've said before, there is no need yet to abolish the existent repair system for tanks. However, if tankers persist in trying to make things easier for themselves by continually making it harder for everyone else, they could lose their sweetheart deal. You have a good deal now--it'd be foolish to lose it by trying to get a sweeter one and failing. This is especially so when the issues you face can be solved by simply playing better. There are ample measures for you to draw upon, from SPAA to concealment to simply moving. If your team had no SPAA, that was their failing. If no effort at air defense was made, then there's nothing to contest. The air was ceded to the enemy. If your team had SPAA, that was the SPAAs' failing. They faced the enemy and failed to defeat it. People crying the "OP planes!" falsehood cause many, many tank deaths because they portray deaths to aircraft as inevitable. They aren't--but because many people believe this myth, they make no serious effort at trying to live, and so they die.
  133. Aircraft being effective is not a flaw in the game (especially considering that their effectiveness is downplayed and undercut by tanks' ability to recover from all but outright fatal blows anywhere). You know, I downplayed this idea before but perhaps it is time to abolish the repair mechanic and force tanks to have to go to designated points to repair, just as aircraft do. Perhaps if tanks lost that ability you'd realize just how well they have it now. Can't argue with the facts so you have to ignore them. Alright then.
  134. I doubt that. Tanks' appeal is more than what a lot of people make it out to be. (Besides, then it just becomes a matter of the little tanks killing one another to get the caps for themselves--a tank battle.) I would ascribe planes' inability to win matches as owing to: the limited number of munitions planes carry (usually under a half dozen bombs/dozen rockets) means their staying power is limited; the long reload (minutes are far more than even stuff like the KV-2 face) and the spread of the damage inflicted. Multiple enemies can be wounded, but often they all have enough SP to carry on with something from there. Everything comes back to the objectives being the easy way to win matches. You're simply overestimating the capabilities of aircraft. Even WarDaddy acknowledged teams with aircraft losing games--despite their alleged overpowered status. Aircraft can only do so much--it's up to the tanks to finish them usually and it is up to them to deal with capture points. I understand the limitations of aircraft and how they work, which is why I know they are not overpowered. Aircraft are not the big players in RB GFs. They just don't do enough to qualify as that.
  135. Those matches have nothing on the ones where you end up 11 RP short of the modification you were working toward.
  136. Indeed, and that is more of the same of what I mentioned. They are allowing themselves to be too keen to think of all battles as proceeding in the same manner when different nations can have fundamentally different requirements for them to work to.
  137. Unlike in game, tracking and other damaging actions were not the fairly minor issues fixable in a few moments' time in real life. On the contrary, a great portion of damage seen commonly--like a jammed turret mechanism--could be grounds for the tank commander to give the order for the crew to abandon it with salvation usually hours away, if it is to come.at all. Tanks' repair system in game gives them an exceptional deal, allowing them to continue on well past when they'd be rendered combat ineffective. This does not have to be abolished, but tankers really ought to acknowledge that they have already been given a very generous deal as it is. Indeed, if you look at some of the threads discussing aircraft in the current events' matches, you'll find many people speaking about how aircraft change the outcome of their battles. Far from enabling smashing successes, the reports are that the presence of the planes and absence of tanks renders what few tanks there actually are on the ground unable to capture and keep possession of objectives. Thus many plane heavy teams are losing teams. Aircraft have a ability to influence matches indirectly--that is true--but their chances at doing that rely mostly on secondary weapons which are scarce for them. When they run out of those, their ability to influence the match's direction goes down the nether.
  138. Mountains and terrain too.
  139. Too few people want anything different; the (passive) vote regarding what Gaijin will pursue and not has been seen--the results went the other way. That's why tanks only hasn't come despite some people liking the idea--there are just too few people behind it. I wish they would adapt. If they did, the complaining would cease.
  140. No need to claim knowing all, just a willingness to acknowledge the facts. We have what Gaijin pitched combined arms; there's little more to say beyond that. People already vote with their choices. That's what you've been seeing.
  141. QMM has not been working for a few months now.
  142. That's the failing AAA has displayed. It exceeds its capabilities markedly.
  143. GF rewards have always been pretty terrible. Keeping subdued--though maybe not camping--is a way to try.
  144. Integrating AI for defense of players is a bad idea, prone to abuse. Airfield AAA has shown this.
  145. Ground forces would be almost entirely useless in map dozens of kilometers across in every direction. (I have suggested players in SPAA be used for runway defense though--that's about all they could be given in RB AF.) GFs in RB AF is just not a viable idea from tankers' perspective. As @Xogo correctly noted before, this is what the majority wants and what Gaijin pitched the game as. I play RB GFs regularly; seeing the enemy team field even a dozen planes throughout a match is rare. Tanks certainly still retain a firm majority on spawns in the matches I've played. The game originally had no dealings with tanks at all--they are the newcomers. As far as realism goes, planes dealt plenty of damage to tanks in real life too. In War Thunder, you have to damage tanks far more to render them ineffective than would have been the case in reality. Tanks' repairing abilities enhance survivability to very high levels. RB GFs is for combined arms, as Gaijin has always intended and the players wanted. People need to just accept that and deal with it. Combined arms is a pride point of the game, adding good variety, more engaging gameplay and uniqueness over other games. ------ Enjoy GF RB guys. It is as it likely always will be.
  146. Practicing short field landings, steep approaches, minimum controllable air speed handling and forward slips would all be advisable.
  147. My point with killing AAA was not only killing AAA, but doing that so you may kill the ticket objectives. When I fly out my BTD (which evidently you fancy too), the first step in engaging I tend to do is eliminating the air defense that threaten myself or anyone else in the area. Suppression of enemy air defenses is a good idea to prevent damage to yourself in such attacks.
  148. Generally pilots making the wrong decision on how to approach these kinds of fights stems from a lack of understanding that these dogfights must be approached with relativity in mind. There are no maneuvers that should be executed rotely--you must judge the situation on its own to determine your moves. This is because sometimes it is suitable to fight in an unconventional manner. In general, the Russians are indeed faster than the Japanese and so the former players must usually assume slashing attacks and tend to keep their distance. Notable exceptions to this would include the late model Ishaks and Chaika. Your statements here are largely correct--the only recommendation I'd make is integrating the sentiments of the first paragraph above.
  149. Eh, I don't think that'd be such a wise idea. On RB maps, that'd encourage attack aircraft to go directly for the ticketed stuff like pillboxes without taking out AAA. That wouldn't help the team on any level.