• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

medal medal medal

warrior412 last won the day on April 13

warrior412 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,313 Outstanding


About warrior412

  • Rank
    Captain Tenneal

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Closing in on you
  • Interests
    Bombing people on the runway--the only entertaining way to kill landed enemies

Recent Profile Visitors

36,107 profile views
  1. Now, now...he's going to make Community Helper any day now with useful contributions like this. The moderators will undoubtedly give him a warm welcome shortly.
  2. In the absence of better information, they are what we have to rely upon. They are certainly better than mere anecdotes--particularly given that many complaining about aircraft can reasonably be assumed to be biased in their analysies. I have no issue with tankers not using SPAA--it's just that they need to be responsible in their response.
  3. There was more to World War II than the Battle of the Bulge. You are aware of that...right?
  4. You could try aiming for the driver's view port. Most shells going through that will OHK it.
  5. I've hull broken M18s, though usually they're with side shots through the engine compartment or lengthwise. It's kind of random.
  6. Thank you for answering my question. I might add that your answer is also reasonable in itself too.
  7. The fact that statistics discredit your argument does not make them illegitimate. Your claims have been discredited; face the facts and stop letting emotions overcome you.
  8. In order: Yes. (http://wwiilogs.com/WTstats/ModeSummary.asp) Yes, you can find that--though you must read it: (http://wwiilogs.com/WTstats/ModeSummary.asp?GameType=2&Nation=4&Rank=&Patch=1)
  9. I still need to find the screenshots of this game I had in my Hetzer a while back; it was a full uptier to 5.7 (as is standard for the Hetzer), facing the usual Allied gangs of M18s. I managed to snipe two M18s myself from over 1 km and the game was over inside of something like 5 minutes with no German losses. The Allies were crushed. I didn't keep count; I did enough to satisfy the various event needs and enough to get those modifications unlocked. Parts and FPE were major goals (though the Panther didn't make the latter). It sounds like this change has not been terribly off putting to you; you've had to change your approach to things in a few ways (such as paths taken)--but otherwise you seem to be taking to the change quite nicely. I congratulate you and applaud that you are actually trying. I have played the Tiger and Panther D--and I have played 5.7 quite extensively (in T-34-85s mostly) as well as uptiered equipment (particularly the Hetzer).
  10. Those percentages are for all ranks overall; it deviates from that average between ranks, above or below the average. The data is current. The last screenshot I took was a week ago--but it has held at about those averages for months now. (In fact, aircraft influence is actually down. It used to be ~10% months ago.)
  11. RB AFs players being brought in is possible--though you'd have to sort out the whole 16v16 bit. It's a bit like the proposed idea I pitched with player SPAAs in RB AFs to guard airfields.
  12. I think player choice would steer it--especially if the system was reworked to allow clean planes to spawn into the game first. While people talk about the contributions aircraft can make, a clean fighter cannot do very much if there are no opposition aircraft to handle. If there are too many fighters up, a team on the ground can quickly be pulverized too quickly for any recovery to happen. (For similar reasons, I would propose that SP rebates be offered to tanks and aircraft that managed to return to designated points; that is not available under the existing system. This would allow tanks that are fine to get into aircraft harmlessly and vice versa.)
  13. Laughable, as usual. Genuine evidence that contradicts your claims exists in the documents you provided--you've just ignored those inconvenient facts. The fact that you cling to one little paragraph is telling--if people read the entire document, they'd find out why you only ever want to talk about in as a snippet. The truth is, you've taken it out of context and neglected to mention that the document's other sections discredit your claims. We know this, and undoubtedly, so do you--it's why you have presented only the cherrypicked paragraph. The fact that you are reliant upon this cherrypicked (fake) evidence and can never seem to find any actual evidence just demonstrates the hollowness of your claims. They are simply baseless rantings. In the face of the verified evidence I have provided, your claims fall flat and remain totally discredited.
  14. I had trouble getting through this without laughing. I have considerably more than 41 battles in the Churchill series (the Mk. I is apparently not entered into TS as of yet) and, while I was occasionally attacked by aircraft, I rarely died. Those are the facts. I did actually teamkill a friendly aircraft with artillery the other day while fleeing a pursuing T-34 in my Chi-He. (I ended up killing the T-34 and two others). It is quite possible. Oh? Where did I say that TDs and heavies don't have artillery? Making up these fibs impresses no one. It's simply embarrassing--just as cheating those who have defeated you is. Of course, if they respawn in a tank, I suppose you'll say that's totally different and totally legitimate. More fake outrage, that's all. Yes. The tank victimhood crowd is missing the big picture here by focusing in on their childish hatred of aircraft. Objective, impartial users sticking to the facts are the ones who can rebalance the mode in a just manner to institute a fairer deal for all involved. Aircraft deserve to be treated fairly, not persecuted because of some's irrational hatred. Tanks Only is not coming to War Thunder. We've been over this dozens of times and putting it on your wishlist to Santa Gaijin will not change that. If there were more people who wanted it, things might be different, however, there aren't. People at large do not want a WoT clone. If they wanted that, they'd play the real deal. If you want WT without planes, try Battle Royale. Tanks are also easy to use, and being able to repair anywhere from anything but non-fatal damage means they are substantially easier to work than aircraft. Realism is greater for aircraft on that basis alone--despite what many of tankers would like to say. As I mentioned, I would suspect the division of kills to vehicles would (on average) fall roughly in line with the various vehicles used. There will be slight deviations as the occasional airplane or tank kill gets ninja'd from one by the other, but by and large it should follow the composition. If two teams have 50% aircraft and 50% tanks each, I figure that the kills will also fall along a 50% split. A +/- 10% deviation factor would be the most I would expect to see; if it exceeded that, I would suspect some adjustments would have to made. (I think realistic portrayals would still be more than possible to include in this too).
  15. There's objective evidence already: Screenshots and all.
  16. Ultimately, the choice of what vehicles are deployed should fall to the players. However, as the game is meant to be combined arms, the capability to deploy all types whenever should be available. As far as results go, I think bombs should destroy tanks when the relevant historical documents say such results should be had (like Kendolph's bomb detonation documents). In that instance, I believe it saided a tested Churchill was destroyed by an SC 250 at 5 meters. As I have survived numerous attacks like that with bombs inside that distance, it appears pretty well confirmed that bombs are underperforming. Given the self-evident nature of the issue, I don't think I need to say anything about the phasing bombs. If 50% of tanks were killed by aircraft, it would only be keeping with the variety of threats tanks face (if aircraft were available from the outset). As shown by results as they come, the number is tied more to the number of vehicle usages than divided between types. Abolishing the tank repair system would represent a major fix in that direction.
  17. You drank your own Kool-Aid and bought into the myth of OP planes. If planes were OP, do we really think that results like this would testify to that?
  18. So, what's your solution OP? Tiger H1/E to 5.3? Something like that?
  19. The original claim LK made was that I had no experience with the types mentioned. I would not call it an "ad hominem," but I would call it "debunked" because that is what has happened to that claim. Since then, he has moved the goalposts in a desperate bid to get around the revelations that I do have the relevant experience. I have played the types involved; I understand their needs well and why certain people have issues with them. It's not the vehicles' issue, it is a player/tactics issue. Until the relevant individuals face up to that, they'll continue to suffer. ...and when the facts discredit your claims (as they have already), what then? I find it amusing that as soon as @*coder-2010 changed tactics his survival results apparently improved markedly, yet others don't follow his lead. To me, that inaction supports the idea that actual success isn't what those complaining are truly interested in.
  20. Oh boy, the laughable claims air dominance again. Only 8% of tanks die to aircraft, versus 72% to other tanks. Tanks kill 9 times as many tanks as aircraft do--but somehow the aircraft are the dominant ones. The claims of air dominance are comically fake. Try again. There is no fear of a Tanks Only mode because it is not coming. Gaijin has no interest in making a clone of other tank games and they have stated that multiple times. The only people who have not acknowledged this are the dead-enders who are hellbent upon ruining the game just because they don't want to play what was stated on the box--they want a clone made for them and them alone. As far as "losing targets" goes, that's also quite comical. The people who are outplayed and defeated now would be easily taken down by other tanks in a tanks only mode too. If you look at this fight, this supposedly great tanker is easily taken down by another tank (so much so that the "great" tanker pathetically cheats his better out of his rightful kill credit). Easy meat will be easy meat regardless of who and what fights them. This is just more comedy. Aircraft weapons (bombs in particular) have been noted to have serious issues like phasing the ground and not doing the sort of damage that they ought to. Given that people like yourself appear totally uninterested in fixing these issues that affect balance greatly, it's rather obvious that others will have to step in to fix RB GFs. People who are not biased against aircraft have to oversee the making of these changes. I would imagine tankers--particularly the radicals--will not like the result when this happens. Aircraft will be given their due and a change of power will be seen. People decrying aircraft as OP now with their unrealisitically nerfed capabilities will probably beg for a return to what is had now when what is realistic is implemented. It's mostly a fake issue, propagated by a very small number of people. In reality, as you say, it's rare and airplanes lack influence. The aircraft are merely the scapegoats that many people choose to blame bad results upon.
  21. RB GFs is really a misnomer; the premise of War Thunder has always been for combined arms. Tankers need to understand that aircraft were always intended to play a part in every mode. Given that you must use a tank before ever having the chance to use an aircraft, combined arms as it is is inherently bent in favor of tanks. As @LuftMaus said, bombs need their capabilities restored. They have been destroyed by absurd nerfs (this has been noted based upon several documents). Once that happens, we can discuss potential changes to rockets. Unless you are advocating for something arcade-like in nature, SPAAs vulnerable to 12.7mm fire should be vulnerable to 12.7mm fire. If they are not, then the whole system of fairness based upon performance and vehicle capability collapses. Player choice determines what is and what isn't brought into battle. If people do not wish to take a certain vehicle into matches, there is little that can be done to change that without changing its capabilities (save for cost changes); if you change its capabilities, you deviate from realism. Tankers were never promised anything more. War Thunder has always been focused upon combined arms, not tanks only. That is why the latter mode will probably never be seen. Based upon statistics, this is not so. Vehicle for vehicle, aircraft do not pose as much of a threat as ground vehicles do when it comes to fighting ground vehicles. Ground vehicles tend to kill about 9 times as many of their kind than aircraft do. As far as making people have identical chances to win goes, that is equality of results and would likely drive a large number of players off. This is because it would make skillful handling irrelevant, snuffing out the premise of competitiveness in a competitive online game.
  22. That doesn't change the fact that you were putting up a big hassle claiming that I was lying solely because you were unaware of how battle credits for events were (not) recorded. For the fights I was engaged in, the better choice to take was a spaded Panzer IV rather than a stock Panther. (Of course, I did frequently bypass this by simply taking the Tiger H1) I understand all three well, as I have played them and fought against them. If people didn't rush straight into the enemy with the M18s or sit perpendicular to the enemy with their Tigers as they often do, they'd fare a heck of a lot better.
  23. Despite (by your count) two-thirds of the enemy team being in the air, they still managed to gain more capture points than your side to win the match. Again, that required people on the ground. That game must have been a total route for your team--long before the aircraft entered into the equation. Well... Overall, the screenshot shows an Allied team that was outplayed and defeated by the enemy Axis team. Surprisingly, given all the complaints we've heard about Germany at that tier, it was the Germans who wiped the floor with the Allied team. Looks like good handling is what determines success after all.
  24. Aircraft play the same role at every tier: a supporting one. Aircraft cannot interact with the objectives, they are reliant upon ground vehicles. On that alone, the whole "aircraft are too influential" charade collapses. (This inability is why the team with more aircraft frequently loses.) Only by killing enemy vehicles may aircraft influence tickets: their rate is 100 per kill--that is it. A one capture point advantage realized by a ground vehicle can match that number every 5 seconds. It is simply embarrassing that some people still desperately claim that aircraft are overly influential when they have barely any sway at all.
  25. So to be clear, you are admitting that you did not know what you were talking about but are trying to rationalize it by saying anyone who plays events has no life. Criticizing people for taking part in events...that's up there with castigating people for being successful. People need a tutorial for aiming the gun at a target and firing it when they believe the lead to be sufficient? Also, where did I say "no effort" was put in? Those are your words, not mine. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant by that. Because it's a bad thing to take spaded vehicles out when you want to make an influence on the direction of a battle. If you want to make this idea you talk about a proposal, go ahead. It's your brainchild. You need my input on that as well?
  26. Battles are won and lost on the ground. Anybody that believes aircraft play more than a supporting role in battles does not understand how RB GFs works.
  27. The Bf 109F-4 is a Tier III aircraft. Speaking about fighters, I would recommend: US: F6F or early F4Us Germany: Bf 109F-1 or Fw 190A-1 Russia: La-5 or Yak-7 Britain: Spitfire IIb or Beaufighter Mk. VIc Japan: A6M2s or Ki-100 Italy: Not having used the tree thus far, I have no suggestions
  28. Actually, the Pz. IV F2 is at 3.3 (in RB). Germans don't have too many issues with the Panzer IVs to serve them.
  29. Oh, that again? Very well, if you want me to show you to be wrong, very well: I played the M18 during the event series too, despite it not appearing on my record. You probably know this guy who--uh--"bore witness" to it. Kill credits and battle victories/defeats for the events were not recorded. That was the case for everyone; as you did not know this, I have to ask you: how long has it been since you played events?
  30. ...I just explained to you that I played the night before last. Are you reading the posts before you reply to them?
  31. I played the night before last. So, again, what about people who didn't do the specified (say, they instead killed a bunch of enemy players before dying)--what of them?
  32. As for people who obtain sufficient SP without such actions...?
  33. The fact that other nations' players fare similarly terribly says about all that needs to be said.
  34. Doesn't this sound quite in line with what I have said?
  35. There you go again...producing that cherrypicked excerpt while ignoring the rest of the citation that contradicts you. The evidence in its entirety discredits your position--which is why you only ever want to talk about this little excised paragraph.
  36. Fabricating evidence and editing citations is not proving things; that is what you had done.
  37. I believe a person could literally grind out the M60 with the M2A2...it's just really inefficient.
  38. Yes, it can be done though I rarely do it that way myself. The commonality of engines can make it somewhat tricky (F4Us, F6Fs and P-47s all share the same engine). For the most part, I identify by silhouette. Most people looking to cause the enemy harm will look for enemies grouped together. I remember once managing to save a game from immediate loss by bombing 8 guys who had piled onto the friendly capture point. One 2000lb later, the point was clear and defeat was staved off. That is a decision that must be made by the individual. Just the other day I had positioned my tank destroyer up in my usual sniping area on Frozen Pass; I wiped out 8 or 9 guys from it without taking any return fire. (Many of my victims literally drove past me with no apparent efforts to go after me.) I usually change positions at some point, though the timing varies widely. Mobility can be just as good as cover if none of the latter is available. Keep moving if under aerial attack If a plane is coming in at a low enough angle, shoot your coaxial machine gun too low. This often convinces pilots you are already at max elevation and cannot target them. Once they are in close, use the MG and/or cannon to kill them. BR 3.3 Japan at the moment (though not literally right now). I am working with the Chi-Nu and will soon begin working with the Na-To too. If you play in that BR range, you're liable to run into me. I ran into Snake the other day...and went 2-0 :3.
  39. Exceeding rare outside of custom and mixed battles. In my thousands of RB battles, I have never once had it in its natural setup.
  40. I accidentally killed a friendly bomber the other day with artillery. I managed to still kill the T-34 that was chasing me and two other T-34s with my Chi-He though. (Mind you, that is a BR 2.3 tank)
  41. Your effectiveness with the SPAA was probably a bit more than our teammates had wanted.
  42. I rarely use smoke but I remember the first time I had it used on me. This brave little Panzer figured throwing up smoke would cover his advance to flank. I just waited for him to turn up and killed him.
  43. I've never noticed a tendency for the matchmaker to give one side to a nation or another. Sometimes I change sides on maps I get in matches back to back (like Berlin).
  44. If you ignore the statistics which show aircraft kill fewer than 1 in 10 ground vehicles on average and the bug reports that bombs regularly phase the ground and do nothing then yes, CAS is definitely OP. Back in reality...here are the facts, once again: MA is here to stay in RB, as is third person view. You can either accept that and move on or not. It is not changing.
  45. You have my record, can see that I play tanks well above the M22 but continue to allege I only play the Locust and I am the one who's trolling? Give us a break, would ya? That's a cute joke, but it doesn't impress anyone. Making things up and ignoring the realities at hand will still not help you.
  46. Haha, sure. I've only played the M22. Back in reality, I have played scads of tanks at higher tiers as shown by my record. The fierce resistance to adapting people have shown here just shows that the bombings have not been effective--they have encouraged no change in how people play. If they were half as effective as you guys portray them to be, you'd be jumping to change strategies to counter them. The joke here is that people think blaming others for their problems will make those issues go away. I have to be honest with you: it won't work. No amount of whine threads crying about defeats will stop them from happening. If you keep whining, they'll keep winning--it's as simple as that.
  47. Which maps?
  48. Thousands of matches, with the spaded tanks of most nations up to nearly Tier III/IV in each (minus Japan). I've played scads of tanks and I understand them well--apparently a bit better than many dedicated tankers it'd seem. You'd be wrong--though I am flattered that you apparently believe I could take an M22 to higher tiers, commit suicide with it regularly and still maintain a ~4:1 exchange ratio. (The reality is that I hardly ever take it outside of its usual BR range). I speak what I do based upon the facts. Statistics show aircraft do very little--the overall average of kills done by aircraft in RB GFs in 8%. In the absolute deadliest places, aircraft kill something like 20%. No matter how you look at it, ground vehicles are always more likely to kill other ground vehicles. As I have said before, if you want to play a tank and disregard half the battle, more power to you--that's your choice. If it costs you and you die because of your tank's vulnerability to air attack, don't waste others' time with caterwauling. You chose to not do anything about the aerial threat, live with your choice. If people want to play tanks and not bring out SPAA, take vulnerability to air attack as a given and just accept that it's the cost of your approach to things. If tankers make poor choices that end up killing them, the enemy players should not be punished for the adversary's incompetence. Oh, aircraft weapons are broken--just not in the way you believe. If you want to talk about something broken, I have something to bring up: I have seen over two dozen bombs phase through the ground and do little/no damage to the targets they were intended for. (My tanks were saved by this twice in fact.) In addition, even documents provided by people complaining about aircraft stated that bomb performance in game is lackluster versus what it ought to be. I do play tanks quite extensively (amusingly, I have more time in tanks in RB than you have in RB as a whole); I understand the needs and tactics of tanks and have advised people on strategies to help them. It is not my fault that people have continued to pursue other, failed strategies that have led to their deaths. People need to learn new, better tactics or stop complaining when their continued reliance on bad ones get them killed. Until they do this, they will continue to be outplayed and defeated by people who are a bit more savvy than they. The choice of whether you want to continue to be easy meat for others is entirely on your shoulders.
  49. Want to lay odds on how likely that is to happen? In RB, you don't get access to other nations' vehicles (ignoring the few captured planes). As a result, you have your own nation and its strengths to work with. If you are proposing we give the Russians Bf 109s and the Japanese P-47s in the name of equality, that is not in keeping with RB's setup.
  50. teamkilling

    The implication that teamkillers support the game financially is a joke, right. (Also, yes, punishments need to be far harsher.)
  51. So basically what you're saying is you got around them, outplayed and defeated them. I like it too--it shows what most air to ground kills are. He runs about in the open with no cover and is wiped out. What a surprise. In the first clip with the Object 268, he had to MiG-9s as sole remaining teammates. Given what the game looks like, it appears to have been headed toward loss long before the snippet. (A MiG-9 does kill an enemy aircraft at the very end of the clip too). In the Maus clip, there are no SPAAs about and friendly aircraft are not seen. A P-47 would probably not survive at top tier if defensive measures were not taken or weren't handled terribly. If a plane gets rid of its bombs and rockets, it capacity to ground strike is gone. Internal armament may be sufficient to rough up milk trucks, but that's about it. If the plane has to fight, he has to forego his mission or die. On most maps, that situation simply isn't the case; most maps (save for Eastern Europe and Ardennes) possess all 3 capture points roughly equidistant from the spawns in Domination. Thus, you may run into whoever makes a try at getting to one--provided people go to meet one another. Even if SP requirements were raised (on what are already the most expensive vehicles), we'd soon hear that 5 or 6 kills shouldn't yield enough SP to take an airplane. Pilots would be punished, then called to be punished more.
  52. Yeah, no skill to grind out the planes, use them or access them. Sure. Comically, that last one is an insult to tankers. They're sluggish when loaded down. Clean fighters of similar BR should be able to get a hold of them.
  53. Who claimed that?
  54. It's evident that he believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Equality of opportunity means everyone is given the same starting point to work with with no preferences given to anyone in particular Equality of results means everyone is given the same ending point to work to; how they get to that point is left up to them Equality of opportunity means that wise decisions and working are the guiding factors to where you end up. Equality of results means that everyone gets everything equally, regardless of how terribly the least capable among them does. Equality of results argues that skill and merit have no place in determining anything--that the least capable person is equally valuable as the best. If you think that equality of results is the approach to handling a competitive game of any sort, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you as well.
  55. You may want to share the tale with the guys who believe SPAA literally cannot kill targets. They would probably find your story educational. SPAA is as effective as people make it. However, because some people are more interested in whining than winning, they don't even bother to take it. They claim it ineffective and demand more. It's truly pitiful really.
  56. Clean P-47s will have a fight on their hands when faced with Bf 109s and Fw 190s. Fully laden P-47s are unmaneuverable cows that should be easy meat even for rather inexperienced German pilots. This idea that a fully laden P-47 can outmaneuver and destroy German fighters with ease is really, really insulting to German pilots. They are far more capable than you are portraying them. For any nation, planes put in the air means fewer vehicles on the ground. If the mixture becomes too heavy, either a route from the air or on the ground ensues for one team or the other. Too ground heavy and you are subject to enemy air attack. Too air heavy and the enemy can waltz right into the objectives and swipe the game literally out from under the enemy. I have seen dozens of games lost by friendly planes. Having more than a few is almost always a recipe for disaster.
  57. Embracing the good advice given to you would have been a better use of that time. Indeed, SL gains are not terribly impressive in RB GFs. People who claim that players go there to farm really have no idea where SL can be generated quickly and cheaply. Some of the people bombing others in RB GFs are possibly doing it to rustle the targets' jimmies. By going into the tizzy that many here do, they are giving those people incentive and motivation to continue. "SPAA is ineffective, cannot compete ((" Laughable that some people actually believe that clap-trap.
  58. So? Germans usually take to the air less and have aircraft with fewer secondary weapons aboard. It only stands to reason that there'd be a disparity. For their part, the German tanks usually kill more tanks than the Allied tanks do to a similar percentage as the disparity. It's balanced, the types doing the killing are all that differ.
  59. The guy who dropped those bombs under my tank only to see them phase through the ground probably didn't think so. The kill numbers don't lie; no matter how you cut it, aircraft do not kill nearly the number of tanks that other tanks do.
  60. Being the most expensive type while not being able to interact with capture points is still too much influence? C'mon...
  61. Tanks only is never going to come to War Thunder. Gaijin has already explained this numerous times.
  62. Survived an attack earlier handily because of it. The bonbs were dropped in a way that would have put them under my tank's hull if they hadn't phased through the ground. Instead, they did phase through and the blast did nothing. This reminded me of just how potent aircraft are right now.
  63. As with the rest of my vehicles, I hardly ever lose my SPAA to aircraft. Being negative in an SPAA is meaningless given that it has so few chances at striking at parity or positiveness. Aircraft are fairly rare.
  64. Players are complaining about Germany suffering from air attack. Germany possesses the Wirbelwind and Ostwind at middle tier, as well as heavier SPAAs at higher tiers. These SPAAs offer a good mix of rate of fire and stopping power (with the Wirbel more focused on the former and the Ostwind on the latter). Despite having access to these (and apparently having an issue with aircraft), few German players take SPAA--with even fewer actually using them as SPAA. Germany also has excellent fighter options at most every tier. I play late model Pz. IVs (and a few other types) frequently. This is not a matter of Germany not having something, it's a matter of them not using what they have. People choose not to defend the skies and then suffer for it. It is pretty difficult to be sympathetic over that.
  65. Wiped out two aircraft with my Japanese Ho-Ni III SPG. That probably earned a little bit toward repair bills I've amassed with it. (Plus if I need to, there's always that 54 million barial talked about to dig into. )
  66. Waiting in the queue bud...
  67. You don't have to dodge what isn't launched at you.
  68. Actually he has more German vehicles than you do--as do I. Anything else?
  69. Played Germans a few days ago; currently working with the Japanese at this moment (literally). I am well aware of the situation at hand.
  70. Haven't played AB for any meaningful amount of time since before tanks. One of the main reasons given for keeping the Panther II at 6.7 as I recall. That it was player skill with the vehicle, not the vehicle itself, bringing it its results.
  71. To use your words, "why should I have to?" I die to aircraft once in 25 spawns--maybe twice or thrice if it's a bad day. Want to run the odds there? Aircraft aren't the threat people make them out to be. It is very overblown. Comically, as I was writing this an aircraft attacked my TD. His first pair of bombs phased through the ground under me, doing no damage. On the next pass, his last bomb landed a little ways in front of me and did nothing. Definitely OP.
  72. But of course when Germans were king at 6.7, that was all skill. Undoubtedly.
  73. Haha, yeah, telling people to play well is a bad thing. It's pathetic how coddled some people want to be.
  74. I still get a kick out of your suggestion that people come to RB GFs for SL. That is a serious kneeslapper.
  75. That's a very dangerous assumption--especially with the premium Tiger II about.
  76. Embarrassingly, you cannot even get these basic facts correct. As this was undoubtedly a reference to me: I have 54 million lions (closer to 55 million now actually) and have scads of Tier IV and V vehicles, many of which are spaded. SL is not terribly scarce; it's quite cheap to gather up. The way you hear them tell it, it's as though the arrival of planes into the match is something that can never be foreseen--that no one has told them of planes' presence in RB GFs.
  77. I think you've been badly misled over the real life SPAA to tanks mixture...
  78. Bombs frequently phase through the ground too.
  79. Stop suggesting rational solutions. The bombings have clearly not done a whole lot if people are not changing their approach to things because of them.
  80. I believe my win rate speaks for itself as far as the success of strategies go; however, I would also agree that personal experiences and perceptions of certain things differ. You may have your approach, I have mine. Neither is necessarily better than the other. CAS options on the table that I can readily think of offhand could include more Fw 190s and Hs 129s (the latter could be a very conservative paper airplane, given that the C/D variants never flew). While I am not sure what things they may bring to the table as new, I am not opposed to new additions of vehicles that are worth having. As far as new ground vehicles go, I again have no problem with additions. I think armored cars or something like that would be the way to go, given their proliferation. (I have heard of a "75mm Puma" and must admit the prospect is quite an enticing one. I like the long 75mm and more speed would be superb.
  81. I tend to advance after a few minutes (frequently just to change positions and evade anyone with a bone to pick); I rarely move into capture points myself, but I do support those who do with covering fire. Berlin is a map that I usually do quite well on with my approach. I think Germans will be waiting a while to overcome if they're sitting around waiting for something like that to crop up again.
  82. As a rule I try to remain undetected and eliminate enemies at at least moderate distances, so I haven't ever put any huge efforts into making Germans work in close-in engagements. I simply do not let things come to that if I can avoid it. I was actually just reading @J4CKAL05's guide on the Pz. IV J yesterday and noting that I had never really noticed its turret rotation versus other late model Panzer IVs. This is talked about in the guide, but I simply overlooked it in the time that I spaded it. My playstyle and engagement ranges probably explain why I didn't take notice of this performance difference.
  83. Either in this thread of a similar one I do recall specifying that German tanks are notably unforgiving to errors as compared with other nations' tanks. Just above there was the notation on CQC.
  84. Oh, there is no doubt that there are less than stellar Allied players too. I simply focus on the German aspect because that was the original query of why they fare poorly.
  85. Yes. I have seen scads of German tanks set themselves up poorly in scores of games, yet the player aspect is something that few people ever want to address. Too many people are too willing to run from the reality that players make mistakes and that those cost them. Based on what I've seen, it's rather obvious that a great portion of Germans' issues stem from the German players.
  86. That was an M46 with HEAT-FS facing (among other things) Tiger H1s and Panzer IVs. 5.7s and 4.3 level stuff aren't terribly well equipped for a fight with an M46.
  87. Anyone who reviews my record can see scores of games with the Axis nations on the ground--though admittedly more in Germans than Japanese--on my record. I have played more than a fair amount with the Axis forces. I have played well into the tiers that are prime territory for aircraft cited in complaints like this (such as the P-47s), yet my death rate is around the average of 8% (1 or 2 deaths in 25 spawns)--perhaps a bit less. Despite all the claims made about aircraft, I rarely die to them. My opinion is based upon experiences; experience has taught me aircraft simply don't pose anything like the threat other ground vehicles do. Thus, I maintain most of my focus upon the ground, eyeing threats arriving from there. Most likely replays would confirm what I suspect--that teams who suffer from these aerial attacks lack air defenses. Air spawns are as they are because (most) aircraft would not have sufficient time to make it to the battlefield on maps such as Port. Returning to the base and the battlefield is not an option that can be taken seriously, as time is insufficient. Unless changes in the time frame of the matches are implemented, air spawns will undoubtedly remain and rightfully so. The talk of RB mechanics and mouse aim is nothing new nor does it amount to anything. We have been over this before: aircraft benefit from mouse aim...and so do tanks. Both sides are on equal footing when it comes to mouse aim. Something to take up with Gaijin as an issue unto itself--if there is anything to it at all. Sounds like he was in on your position. Someone you killed beforehand? If you are suggesting that this happened upon your first spawn, we'd need to see the replays. It seems highly unlikely without evidence.
  88. Ambushes are where I've done best with the Archer. Urban maps are good for it in my experience.
  89. Because of their reliance upon solid shot, the British are unforgiving (though "bad" is a bit too harsh). Because of the spotting system in AB, it may actually be better for you to change over to RB where you must find your targets (and they you) visually. This could function as a way to increase your situational awareness and tactics.
  90. I value a chance to gain more SP and other earnings for myself than I fear SP acquisition from my hide by the enemy. Others' styles may differ I suppose.
  91. The P-40 has respectable chances there; its bombload (versus other Americans') is subpar by that BR though.
  92. Bailing out is a true waste. Even suicidal charges are more effective and efficient.
  93. That is all potentially true, yes. What @MH4UAstragon witnessed was probably an excursion that could be reasonably called a mediocre success. It didn't result in a massacre of tanks, but it was not without results either. I would need more information to say more beyond that (like how efficient the targeting was and if the best targets were hit). The worst people are the sorts who capture and fly then fail (utterly). When a person does this and then dies empty-handed, those are the true drags on their team. I see those types frequently, which is why I loathe the tactic myself.
  94. While I have never used MEC due to a general lack of concern with its offerings versus its costs before, I will remember to take note of this when I begin working with my P-47N.
  95. While the second point you make is potentially valid, you must remember that if they captured one point (or especially two), they deprived their teammates of chances at obtaining SP. Therefore, if their teammates are killed without having acquired SP by other means, those teammates are subject to being out of the match. If such a number were to exceed 4, (assuming your second point is entirely correct), the exchange rate would be negative. The team could potentially be weaker for their actions, as I have said.
  96. This sounds like the guys I see. All things considered, they sound like they were liabilities to your team--just as the guys I've witnessed are. People that do as they do usually hurt their teams far more than they help it.
  97. Considering that many people claim the Axis nations are the ones who suffer from planes as they are, this is a curious comment. Care to elaborate? The replays that would be far more interesting to see than SPAAs functioning as SPAAs would be the ones showing the alleged annihilation of ground vehicles by aircraft. People are going to need to see just how these supposed slaughters happen. It would be quite informative to see how people are allowing aircraft to pick them apart so. Speaking for myself, I hardly ever take out my SPAA units first. There is simply no need to in my eyes as the threat of aerial attack is remote (I die about 1 time in 20 spawns to aircraft) and minutes away to boot. Instead, I forego that protection in exchange for time to gain a good position in my first vehicle (usually a tank or tank destroyer). By the time my first vehicle dies, I usually have enough SP to respawn in an SPAA or aircraft (if I perish at all). For people who have issues with aircraft, SPAA is the first active measure they should try working. While passive measures like evasion and sheltering are good, SPAA allows you to take the fight to aircraft. SPAAs are a good solution to deter aircraft with and are cheap too. Aircraft are far more expensive, but do boast some advantages over SPAA in handling enemy air units (notably the place where they may engage and the versatility (on some aircraft) to attack ground units).
  98. Usually convergence is (at most) 800 meters--40% of the distance you've listed. By the time bullets set to converge at 800 meters make it to 2000 meters they've more than switched positions; the spray is more like a shotgun than anything like the accuracy you're talking about--even if you don't involve the vertical component.
  99. Every choice made has its tradeoffs. That's an example of one.
  100. Therein lies the problem. People don't want to provide for their own air defense, but they don't see the connection between that and them being destroyed by enemies later on.
  101. To an extent, yes. They can still manage CQC but it is not ideal. This relative weakness is why I cannot understand German teams' pursuit of the A point on [Domination] Tunisa; often they will pile into the town.
  102. I never said that, though I will say this: Germany is certainly not the oppressed waif of a nation that many people like to pretend it to be.
  103. Most likely @_Catweazle_63 or @Auscam will either fold this in with the others or lock it. Indeed. Defeat is not a game issue, it's just one of two possible outcomes. Sometimes you lose; that's all there is to it. The only issue related to planes that there really is is some people's proclivity to leave enemy aircraft alone. Thereafter, those same enemies whip them and the inattentive are upset by this. Gaijin has no intentions of removing aircraft from RB GFs. Representatives have stated this multiple times (here is one such instance). The whole "balance" bit doesn't work out either, given that balancing of air/ground mixture is done by WT players. Your team decides it composition, and thereby, balance. Given that so few people take out SPAA for air defense, it's rather obvious that the problem people have with aircraft isn't so pressing that they actually bother to do something about it. Thereby, more aerial attacks might be an avenue forward--encouraging people to play smarter. If a person earns enough SP to spawn a vehicle, nobody has a place to deny them the rightful usage of their earnings. If you do not wish for them to have something, destroy it or prevent them from getting it at all. The problem there is SPAA is used for purposes like that rather than air defense; this deprives the team of protection. In addition, capturing zones in the matter you describe hurts the team of the captor by denying them the SP earnings they could have potentially shared in by capturing the point also. Very frequently a team will be worse off for having a captor do as you say. People need to bring SPAA with the express purpose of air defense. In addition, Gaijin should add an option to spawn into a pure fighter aircraft as one's first spawn for around the same SP as a heavy tank. This combination would make for potent air defense.
  104. When I played the Hetzer while spading it, I remember quipping that giving it a 5.7 battle rating would only be being honest about its BR, given that it was nearly perpetually thrown up to that BR by having 4.7 lines pulled into 5.7 level games. Even so, I am not entirely sorry for the experience. The Hetzer still fared quite well and I think it helped me adapt to less than ideal situations. I do remember having to wiggle out of many terrain induced situations that resulted from my own actions forces beyond human control. Karelia can be tricky when driving through the backwoods.
  105. Two kilometers huh? That'd be quite a feat.
  106. Depends on the team; I have had some pretty close games to where I had to be adamant that no one foolishly bail out and foresake the ticket advantage had by our team a couple of times. Matches that come down to the wire are the fun ones.
  107. The P-40E is undertiered. This is pretty common knowledge since it was reworked. I would say it belongs at a BR of no lower than 2.7, and quite possibly 3.0. I used to use it as a 3.3 when it was at that BR long ago. I-185s were not a bridge too far.
  108. Embarrassingly, it would appear that this is the only evidence you possess for your claims. An excerpt which intentionally leaves out surrounding statements that do not support your narrative. That you are resorting to this surgical cherrypicking of citations says about all that needs to be said about the legitimacy of the claims you are making. Further, and unsurprisingly, you have no rebuttal to the information I provided at your request yesterday. You asked for it, suggesting I did not have it. Now that I have presented it, all of a sudden you have nothing to say but to again post the same cherrypicked paragraph. It is telling that I can immediately meet your request for citations but you cannot support your own claims with references of your own. The reality is this: people are upset over defeats and they are seeking to put an end to them. Unfortunately, as long as they continue to be reliant upon artificial changes and nerfs by the game, they will never improve. On the contrary, their condition can be expected to worsen as time goes by. Improving themselves is the only true way forward and up. Until they embrace it, they're headed backward and down. Something that people claiming problems with aircraft continually try to steer the conversation away from is the repair system in RB and how it affects things. We have even had people call it "semi-realistic" and, embarrassingly, they were serious in making that statement. As talked about in the citation lollydog provided, vehicles damaged in combat very frequently became abandoned vehicles. These were effectively lost by their nations because the enemy would advance around them and prevent further usage of them. In War Thunder, the repair system negates this by allowing ground vehicles to recover from all but fatal attacks within a certain amount of time. If the game were more realistic, aircraft would not have to outright kill targeted vehicles to neutralize them. Even simply tracking them would render them combat ineffective--a charge that many nations' tank commanders would give the order to abandon over. Essentially, what we have is people complaining that aircraft are not realistic enough while ground vehicles benefit from a system that is very unrealistic--to an extent that it is arguable it's leaps and bounds beyond anything related to aircraft. It's the pot calling the kettle black for ground vehicles' operators to complain about aircrafts' operators' adherence to realism. That reasonable proposals for how to solve the issues suffered are reacted with such vitriol and unwillingness to try (nevermind do), you can tell how seriously the issue is taken--even by those who complain about it. If aircraft were half the threat they are said to be, you'd probably see people taking more direct measures to address it than mere flailing on the forums.
  109. I still have many unlocks to do to get there; the Chi-Nu II is where I am stopped at the moment. The Na-To is 1000 RP off.
  110. Would it be fair to assess it as (at least vaguely) comparable to the Me 410A/B-1s? If so, the Japanese should have an acceptably formidable attacker.
  111. I possess the P1Y1, though I have yet to use it because I have not done much with RB AFs for the bigger part of the year. I have begun working quite a bit with Japanese ground forces in the past week or so, but I am still only at BR ~2.0 because I wish to spade the vehicles as I go to keep my lineups as competitive as I can as I press them into progressively higher tiers (prior to replacement). The P1Y1 and other Japanese bombers like the Ki-67s (which I need to finish researching) will undoubtedly be used in RB GFs by myself in the future, but those days are still a fair bit off.
  112. Yeah, I probably should have noted that it's mostly the IJN aircraft that have the poor bombloads. IJA stuff is better, though they still pale in comparison to what the US and some British aircraft boast. Japanese bombers are generally quite good as far as sheer performance goes (the B7A being superb), but they remain generally less capable as far as tenacity goes than Allied types. (The B7A can take the large 800kg bomb for one drop; a pair of 250kg bombs and two pairs of 60kg bombs or five pairs of 60kg bombs. These options aren't quite as good (at least to my eyes) as others like the SB2C or TBF for instance.)
  113. I remember taking into AB (for the Soviet P-63C event); I managed 13 kills before dying once in it in one game. @thunderkiller96's quote during this game regarding my results was that I was "feeding his plane with assists." (The Teamwork and Supporting Fires our squad gathered for each other were part of the requirements to acquire the P-63C if I recall correctly).
  114. As I recall, the Japanese rockets had in game were almost all (if not all) designed with air-to-air usage in mind. Usefulness against ground targets is probably low. Japanese bombs are a different matter, though more pressing is that few Japanese aircraft can mount more than a meager pair of 60kg bombs.
  115. The tournament system is not something I have ever been terribly fond of. I hardly ever participate and cannot actually recall when I last tried at one. (Perhaps the last one to offer up the DB-7?) Far too byzantine and reliant upon chance for my liking. As for the I-301 event in specific, I had no reason to try because I had acquired the I-301 itself years ago. The I-301 is a respectable aircraft, though after being uptiered from 2.3 to 2.7 it isn't quite the clubber it used to be portrayed as. By 2.7, the faults of its fat-bodied LaGG-3 lineage are increasingly apparent (and can be seen if you have a squadmate in a LaGG-3-66 accompany you). Versus the LaGG-3-66, the I-301 trades some performance for armament and endurance. I personally enjoyed both aircraft and to me, choice between the two is really a matter of taste: you can either choose to have a little extra performance (LaGG-3-66) or more ammunition (I-301). Factors that should be considered in your decision include probable opposition and your playing style. The I-301 is a good aircraft, but its lore has perhaps inflated its capabilities a bit more than it ought to.
  116. Oh wow, so anything that doesn't fall in line with your ideas is "trolling," eh? Sure. It'd be pretty silly to try to play the Churchill Mk. I--already mediocre at best at its BR of 3.3--at a higher battle rating. I must laugh off the suggestion of "seal clubbing" given the extreme mediocrity of the Churchill. (As I mentioned in my original post, they would have quite possibly resisted my shots by simply facing me--rather than giving me their sides.) The Panzer IV F2s I ran into could have destroyed me, despite my number of games played, quite easily. The only reason they did not is they did not play well; their vehicles were more than able to destroy mine. Contrary to your implication, incidentally, few people hastily take to the next battle rating they can as soon as they are able to. This is because of the silliness of getting yourself in over your head with unupgraded vehicles, legacy lineups and simply outpacing yourself when it comes to understanding. What I stated was that German players who fare poorly against opposition in the superb long 75mm Panzer IVs (from the F2 onto the J variants) will only encounter more difficulties with opposition as their adversaries' capabilities near their own. The situation they head toward as they progress only worsens and if they are not ready for it, it will bring them down. I stated why they would fare badly at higher tiers, not that they were guaranteed to be. Records indicate you have fewer than 100 battles in German ground vehicles. This means that you have had precious few chances to look at German teams for yourself while among them. You are new to RB and there is nothing wrong with that, but this inexperience means that you have likely not had the chance to see what others who have been around longer have seen. My statements were based upon my observations made in scores of battles; it's a sturdier foundation for conclusions to be based upon than a few dozen. By and large, this statement was correct:
  117. Bot Ju 87s have been added to each side. They seem to fire randomly.
  118. It's a mistake to carry those rather than the 1000kg bomb. Those rockets have never been terribly good and I don't think a nerf is the cause of it.
  119. Here are two videos made by @ORYG1N regarding the SMK: With 76mm Shrapnel shells only: With 76mm APHE loaded: I don't think there is a terrible need for a downtier of this thing. It seems quite happy where it is.
  120. Whatever for? [Alternate History] Krymsk is a superb map--to me anyway. I can't say I disapprove of any of this.
  121. Unless you have a squadmate; the drop on the Ki-43-III otsu from the beginning; an overly cautious Oscar pilot at the helm or one who can be tricked into pushing the aircraft too far and ripping it apart, you're going to have difficulties trying to kill it using just about anything. The Ki-43-III is exceptionally formidable and can be extremely slippery.
  122. Your evidence was not genuine, it was cherrypicked. You presented a citation with convenient edits to remove parts contradicting your claims. Resorting to supressing evidence does not demonstrate a willingness to be impartial to the facts, nor does it impress anyone. The citation you provided--when looked at in its entirety, not just the snippets you posted--did not confirm the accuracy of your claims (quite the contrary). I have provided the evidence many times; your unwillingness to accept these facts is no bad reflection upon me. Because I have the citations readily available, once again, here they are: The evidence here is sturdy and objective--numbers and empirical evidence, not subjective feelings and perceptions. I have provided a link to the citation inside the spoiler for anyone who wishes to check into it for themselves.
  123. What has been proven is that some people would rather whine than win. They would rather spend more time complaining than spend less time replacing their failed strategies to simply do better. It's embarrassing that some people insist on being slow learners, but I suppose it just goes to show that the "problem" they have is not a serious one. If it was, you'd expect them to embrace the solutions presented to them. The idea that aircraft and their weapons are overperforming has been thoroughly debunked with numerous citations that contradict that myth--even documents provided by those complaining show bombs to be underperforming. In addition, bombs still disappear harmlessly into the ground with extreme frequency. (I witnessed this about two dozen times the other night myself. Plenty of attempted aerial attacks were totally harmless as a result.) No matter what is done to aircraft, whine threads about defeat at their hands will still crop up because defeat is what provokes such threads. If a tanks only RB GFs mode was implemented today to satisfy plane haters, tomorrow there would be theads about "(tank) OP!" because it defeated the thread starter's tank. If you look at the people who complain about the game as it is now, you can understand why they complain. For the most part, the people who complain about things as they are fare badly in their vehicles despite many of the types being superb. Rather than accept that they might be handling themselves poorly, these people blame and scapegoat whatever they choose--often aircraft. In an attempt to raise themselves up, they propose to drag everyone else down and attack the very premise of War Thunder. People blaming their own poor results on other things is not only embarrassing, it prolongs their suffering. They will never become better players if they continue as they are and deny their own ability to do better. The ideas they propose threaten to drive off players on the auspices of retaining those who have already voiced their dislike for War Thunder being what it promised to be. Given that, it's unsurprising Gaijin has not been terribly keen to implement their ideas. People who think that SPAA are ineffective really do not understand the workings involved. If the target aircraft is in range of the SPAA, the SPAA has the potential to shoot the target down. With good shooting, that can happen. If the target aircraft is not in range of the SPAA, the SPAA will not be able to shoot the target down but the target aircraft should also be out of range to make an immediate attack on friendly ground forces. This balance is quite important and demonstrates how SPAA can provide deterrence when used explicitly as an air defense tool. In this, SPAA is valuable; people just underestimate that value and mistaken misuse SPAA in other capacities as a result. (In the case of Germany, from 1.3 onto 4.7, there is an array of superb SPAAs available. The only thing restraining the Germans from having excellent SPAA coverage is the German player. They can either choose to provide air defense or choose not to.) SPAA statistics are what they are for a number of reasons: SPAA are reliant upon other ground units for protection from enemy ground units Enemy aircraft to target are few in number and can die to other causes (friendly aircraft and crashes (plus game kill feed failures)). Most SPAAs cannot destroy enemy tanks outside of close quarters engagements. Other factors which skew the general statistics of SPAA include people using them to capture points and as incognito tank destroyers while under the mistaken belief that they are not useful in their actual role. Far more SPAA deaths owe to other ground units than to aircraft, demonstrating once again the bigger threat posed by ground vehicles to others of their kind. Excellent results can be had in SPAA if there are targets to go after and protection by friendlies is sufficient. ---------------------------------------------------- The individuals who think that they are being oppressed really ought to engage in some introspection. The only person holding them down is they. By denying their ability to adapt and overcome, they prevent themselves from ever becoming better. Whether you want to succeed or fail is entirely up to you. Your fate is not set.
  124. While I have found the Me 410s' 500kg bombs to be good, the main focus of Germany regarding air power in RB GFs should usually be air defense. If the Germans cannot match the Allies' ground attack capabilities, they should be seeking to stop them. The lightweight Fw 190s (like the F-8, which can also carry a 1000kg bomb) and Bf 109s can defend the airspace well, though they are less accustomed to the fighting conditions of RB GFs than some of the opposition.
  125. I happen to be right now, but I not "never wrong." I think he might be referencing the rewards yielded for, among other things, shooting down an airplane. <23K isn't exactly a lot though to be honest.
  126. The two 5.7s, the Panther D and the Tiger H1. Evidently using them in the event series weeks ago kept them out of the record books. (I also used the M18 and Nashorn a bit; all with the intention of getting a bit of research going and being as competitive as I could to get the prize vehicles.) My statements are based upon those experiences and my observation of others' in those vehicles when I was almost perpetually tossed in with them on full uptiers in the Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV in regular battles.
  127. Given how many were made, I would argue against premium--at least for the US.
  128. It's not a great idea to hop onto bandwagons just because a lot of other people do. I prefer sticking to the facts myself. SL is cheap and generally superfluous to all but people with little SL. At 54 million, I couldn't care less about SL rewards for capturing. In a similar vein, I don't bother with capture points for the SP they offer because the tradeoff of alerting the enemy team of you location negates it. Taking away SP earnings from capture points would likely encourage more ignorance of the objectives.
  129. I have played hundreds--perhaps thousands, I haven't done a tally lately--of matches in Tiers III and IV. The basic dynamics are the same throughout the game and aircraft do not fundamentally change their attack patterns--just speed mostly. I understand what the underlying complaint is, it's just something that isn't what people claim it to be.
  130. While I wouldn't be terribly effected by such a change (I killed plenty of people, usually 2 or 3 at least, before dying), I must note that I doubt doing that would stop complaining. As far as team composition and all that goes, a pre-battle list screen and chat should be added ahead of the match initially and then the respawn screen reworked to show team composition before respawn. It's a matter of accepting limitations. Not everything is built to conquer all things, which is what you acknowledge. It is fine for there to be gaps in capability, but people need to understand those things and accept there are certain shortcomings they must be aware of. It's like taking a Maus out for capture points in an expeditious manner. It could theoretically work (if the enemy team was completely oblivious to a house touring their portion of the map), but it probably won't given the capabilities of the Maus.
  131. The Super Hellcat was killed but had enough SP gathered to use another vehicle. What success he had with it is unknown; the video cuts out before any action. If you don't like the situation of an enemy attack up unopposed early in the game, you ought to support fighters being available upon first spawns. That would reduce the threat posed. People have asked me how I survive battles and why I disagree with the silly idea that planes are overpowered. I have provided detailed explanations for both. People ought to listen to my advice if they are truly concerned with being bombed because it will help them avoid getting bombed at any extraordinary rate. Because people turn down good advice, it's rather obvious to me that certain people do not want a reasonable solution. They merely want to either complain and/or damage the mode and betray the game mode as it was envisioned, often in the hopes of something closer to WoT.
  132. Why shouldn't they be criticized for complaining while unprepared? I am not providing a shoulder for people to cry on and I don't join in with the sob sisters. My purpose here is to educate those here on how to do better and succeed. Unfortunately, many people are determined to fail.
  133. The FM-2 should be added, as it was a major type during the war. In addition, a premium version for the British should also be integrated.
  134. Eh, such absolute statements probably aren't the best to make. I have, many times, been forced to carry teams in bombers--both by destroying ground units and eliminating the players. I have had my TBF Avenger called a clubber--by an La-5 for killing him twice; my BTD screamed at for eliminating two trios of British fighters and my B7A called a UFO for outturning and reversing upon a P-51 over Saipan. The success or failure of a type has everything to do with the person using it. Usually I just drag my "attackers" (that's what they think) into secluded areas of the map for a 1 versus 1 fight. Then I find out if my forward firing guns still work. Once that's done--if I have lived--rinse and repeat... I remember one time I impressed a squad of La-5Fs when I managed to give 2 of them the slip for a good 2 minutes or so while under direct attack and outside AAA cover in the SB2C. That was an intense and fun game.
  135. Considering that the only things that will tend to give the Pz. IV H many troubles reliably at its BR range are KV-1s, Jumbos and stuff like the Centurion Mk. I, no, the Pz. IV H is not "totally outclassed." The Panzer IV H is an excellent medium tank, though it is definitely at a BR and point where the Panzer IVs are becoming somewhat long in the tooth.
  136. Your video shows exactly why aircraft succeed as often as they do. By all indications, the opposing SPAA/fighters are either not around or not acting to cover their friendly forces. Despite this, you apparently hold this as an unfair triumph by the Thunderbolt. If competent enemies manned SPAA, fighters or both, there's a good chance that P-47 would have been destroyed long before it was able to launch that attack. Had the Ferdinand been faced with a tank of comparable BR from the same angle on the ground as the P-47, it'd have likely perished from a sideshot there too. It was his position that made him vulnerable to the attack that killed him. If this sort of thing really does upset you, do something about it: take an SPAA or a fighter and address the threat you are complaining about. Unless you do, you will likely continue to suffer at the hands of such threats--and given willful inaction--rightfully so. Caterwauling over deaths at the hands of threats you did nothing to address is merely rationalizing failure. The longer people throw pity parties for themselves over this, the more it will happen to them.
  137. That's no deterrent to me. If I do not want to play a mixed battle, I will not.
  138. There's also the matter of certain inherent things of the game that skew conditions in such a manner as to make some real life data meaningless for reference to the game. The fact that aircraft know exactly (in rough terms anyway) where they can find tanks is chief among them. Relatively, engagements of tanks are undoubtedly more common in game than in real life. This is because of our arenas.
  139. Your edited papers don't impress. Those documents you edited talked about how abandonment may have been spurred by the aircraft's presence and attacks.
  140. I have already provided a great deal of evidence--much of it being from the game itself too. You have provided nothing but edited (faked) documents that you had to cherrypick sections from because they actually contradict you if the whole citation was included. Unlike in War Thunder, repairs were not instant anywhere and anywhere. Many of the sites you guys like to parrot on and on about mention that repairs of non-fatal damage often required visits to workshops. Your own documents also talk about abandonment over damage that would be considered minor in War Thunder. Your own document that you keep bringing up--as though it is the gold standard or something--specifies three miles' visibility. That is very common in War Thunder. Laughable, especially in light of how bombs work (as noted above). I already have provided the evidence above and before; it wasn't that hard to do and it has indeed discredited your claims. Checkmate; discredited your claims with citations and evidence--what have you to say in retort?
  141. You cut out the portions contradicted your position. That's not evidence, that's cherrypicking. If your "evidence" was true to what you say, you wouldn't have to edit whole parts of it out. Meanwhile, I have provided citations from in game that you still cannot answer...one side has evidence backing them--and it's not those complaining about aircraft hurting them.
  142. When SPAA is deployed, aircraft are far more reluctant and often die to defending forces. But we must respect everyone's right to mindlessly run about. Who needs strategy and teamwork in a team based game requiring strategy?
  143. Still clinging to those cherrypicked and theoretical documents, eh? The first photo is an incomplete excerpt; you left out a portion of it that contradicts what you've said. The second photo is a statement regarding what Allied commanders would like for D-Day. What you're doing by citing it as you are is like talking about a wishlist to Santa as a legal document. It's telling that all you can put forward is stuff that is known to be meaningless. Once again, you have managed nothing to support your cause. ----------- Having actually played last night, I cannot count the number of times I saw bombs simply phase through the ground--it must have been at least two dozen times. One of the few times I was hurt was when a bomb (I could not see the size) landed in a house a few feet from me and seemingly phased into the house and the ground. I was lit afire, but a simple fire extinguisher and transmission repair and all was well. It's pretty hard to take complaints about aircraft seriously when their weapons are having such serious issues so regularly.
  144. Oh, I'm sure that absolutely everyone would be happy with such a change.
  145. Many of Germans' woes are a result of Germans. Many others are Japan's...
  146. The evidence provides it, yes. With anything less you only have faith.
  147. You're not wrong--but what I said is not reliant on people only playing Germans. German players (for this purpose, anyone who happens to roll out with a German vehicle--regardless of any other nations') have to come to terms with vehicles that handle a fair bit different than most other nations'. At 5.7, stuff like the Tiger H1 and Panthers are substantially slower than a fair bit of the opposition they face (especially M18s). If this is not taken explicitly into account, this oversight can be exploited. Because of the speed situation and German vehicles greater ability to snipe from long ranges, SP from capture points is often not grabbed up by Germans. As a result, it can be more troublesome for them to acquire subsequent spawns should they perish. In the case of the Panthers (at least the ones I have used), stock turret rotation is horrid and so this does not lend itself well to urban fighting that some maps push (like Poland and Tunisa) There's more to it than this--obviously--but this is notable stuff that Germans must face.
  148. I will have to review this; I believe I understand the various headings of the tables, but I will need to look over the original site to confirm that I'm reading them correctly.
  149. I believe people took shots at me (though I don't recall from what angles). The Panther wreckage's hit box seems bigger than the visual model because I regularly see shell detonations when I think they should continue on unabated. Sometimes I sneak up there even when part of the Northern team, as it is often fairly easy to sneak over there and shoot people in the back. In that match it was somewhat amusing to me that I managed to stay alive as long as I had. I managed 8 or 9 kills and only moved from my sniper's nest when I ran out of ammunition. Airplanes strafed me as I headed for A to get more--likely retaliating against my tries at shooting them down with the 29-K beforehand. Considering the damage I had done and time spent in plain sight, I was not terribly upset.
  150. I'm willing to trust in the ones that have physical evidence backing them.