In the Air and at Sea
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal medal medal

Community Reputation

1,167 Outstanding

1 Follower

About *sigma__zero

  • Rank
    Killjoy First Class

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Destroying Stalin's minions, the smell of burnt T-34s in the morning.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,768 profile views
  1. I've shot down many B-29s with my Ar 234 C-3. Wings are the most effective weakspots, though they are harder to shoot unless you're sitting right behind it. The best angle I've found is from the rear, slightly to its side and below it, where you can aim for the wing roots. Something that a lot of people don't know or ignore is that a heavily damaged wing on something as big as a B-29 is pretty much a death sentence, more so if you knock out an engine or two. The loss of lift and/or thrust makes the plane much harder to control, and, in most cases, the plane won't be able to keep flying straight in the needed angle for an accurate bombing run, let alone manage to return to base and get repairs.
  2. 1. And? They have created entire tech trees of tanks, they are working on ships and they haven't stopped making planes. It's not like they have to do a completely new tech tree with supersonic planes from the 50s all the way to F-22s and PAK-FA all at once. 2. The game physics and flight models are a work in progress that they keep tweaking and tuning. Again, it's nothing to start all over from the scratch. They could simply start with simplified models, add more accuracy and complexity as time goes on. 3. Again, it doesn't mean the addition of an entirely new tree all at once, but a slow, gradual addition of newer planes. Is it a risky business choice? Maybe. At least nowhere on the same level as the decision they made of adding Boat Thunder and skipping large, iconic ships. If anything, it might attract more players into the game. There are few simulators with Vietnam-era planes available on the market and absolutely none on consoles. 4. Maps can be made bigger (ideally new maps made, as it would be stupid to have supersonic aircraft fighting in World War II scenarios), with airfields set apart at longer distances (or better yet, abandon the stupid "arena" approach and make actual realistic scenarios instead). Supersonic flight requires the use of afterburners, which makes fuel consumption another factor to consider as well. About air-to-air missiles, it depends how they are implemented. Malfunctions wouldn't be modeled, I agree, but other limitations would. It still wouldn't be easy to use them. You mention the narrow field of vision of the seeker, which is one of their limitations that would easily be implemented. Another easy implementation would be the coolant limits. False IR sources would be harder to implement, but nevertheless not out of possibility. More importantly, targets wouldn't just sit there waiting for you to kill them, but would perform evasive maneuvers (except bombers, but of course that's where BR limits come into place, so we don't have large and slow strategic bombers playing against supersonic fighters with missiles made to kill them with ease). The way I see it, people would complain about missiles not because they are too good or end games quickly, but because they're not the fire-and-forget "beep-beep-kill" machines they saw in movies like Top Gun. That's because Namco took very stupid decisions in the post-PS2 era, like AC6 being an Xbox 360 exclusive and then the release of that awful AC Assault Call of Horizon Duty. Infinity was actually very successful for a F2P game (I spent much more money there than on WT). Anyway, sorry for going off-topic here.
  3. So, succumb to the pressure of the fighter elitists and stop playing bombers just because they told you to? Loser strategy, indeed. Until Gaijin fixes the game and moves it out of the immature "Team deathmatch!11!!1"-only gameplay, do what you can to drain tickets from the enemy. Avoid enemies and use the bomber's strategy to your advantage. Rush the targets when the map and your bomber allow it, otherwise take the long route and wait for your allies to clear the way before you rush in. If you want to destroy bases, pick a BV 238, Tu-4 or B-29 (ideally with three squadmates using the same planes), coordinate and enjoy the tears of your enemies when their AF is destroyed.
  4. Guy's probably playing in a squad preying on new players. I remember seeing a squad of three guys with M3 Stuarts clubbing the soul out of rookies in tier 1 matches. They all were level 70 or above and had thousands of games on the same vehicles and a KDR of around 4-6. It's within the rules of the game, but I couldn't help but thinking it was a little disgusting to see someone who only plays the game to club seals along with their squad, not to mention how mind-numbingly boring it must be to play with the same vehicles over and over and over.
  5. Yeah, the game doesn't give much information about rockets. Only the Hydra rockets get information about warhead type and size in their stats card. I also think there's something wrong about how the game models AP rockets. I've never been able to do anything to a tank with the RBS-82/132 or the Panzerblitz other than scratch their paint a little.
  6. It's an ignore option. If you blacklist an user their chat messages are hidden. It doesn't mean they can no longer play in the same match with you.
  7. Yes, I have jets, and I have the Italian F-84. I take the 20m fuel option. Full tank is 28 min. Doesn't sound like much, but considering how fuel-hungry early turbojets were, 28.5% more fuel probably added a considerable amount of weight.
  8. There are way too many myths and misconceptions around planes in AB GF (and the mode in general) that the game never dispels, so maybe a mandatory tutorial for rocket/bomb use would help. Well, first of all the reward should be displayed much more prominently. I had to take a video replay to find out how much I was given for a Safe and sound award, as the number is so small and inconspicuous that many players probably don't even notice it. Second, the reward doesn't have to be equal to or higher than a kill. It just has to be something valuable to the player. That's why I suggested an RP reward to be added as well. RP is invaluable for someone doing the grind (which is most players), especially in higher tiers. For someone who is level 100 and has 15 million SL on their account, they probably don't care if they get 450 SL or if they get 1250 SL, but if they also get 1250 RP into the research of FPE, in a match where they can hardly get RP since they can't even pen opponents with their stock shell, trying to survive sounds like a much better idea. About people flying on the edge of the map, I don't see it happening. An attacker or a bomber that does this loses their chance of getting one or more kills (and, if they survive, also pick the bonus reward), not to mention that enemy interceptors simply won't let it escape unharmed. If fighters happen to spawn without having enemies to kill, yes, they could just retreat and leave (and give a break to open top vehicles from being strafed), but they already gave up one of their air points to spawn that fighter so it evens out. I believe you get slightly more SL for Bomber/attacker Safe and Sound than Fighter Safe and Sound, so there should be that difference as well. All in all, everyone would win with such a change. Except for the most stubborn rammers, of course.
  9. Set a fuze activation distance (I use 300m), approach an enemy (a bomber is an ideal target), fire the rockets at the correct distance and enjoy the fireworks. Just don't use the RBS rockets, those have armor-piercing warheads and thus are completely useless.
  10. If it is a feasible design and there is enough information to build it within a certain degree of accuracy, I'd love to have it in the game. I don't care if it's a prototype or blueprint. It's kind of awesome to see designs that weren't built being given life in the game. If it's 100% accurate or if it saw combat or not, to me it's just nitpicking.
  11. Because German bias Minengeschoß .
  12. lead indicator

    Gun selection. I honestly don't have a problem with the aim marker (you can always use and rely on tracers for one type of gun and the lead marker for the other one), but it's impossible to fire different guns with different buttons with a PS4 controller. Being able to toggle certain guns off and on would be extremely helpful.
  13. That's a full combat load. Bombs, rockets, full fuel tanks (possibly also external ones, I'm not sure). Who takes off with full fuel load in WT, anyway? They could implement RATO first. If it's not enough, lengthen the runways.
  14. Most fun (tanks only, AB only, listed in no particular order): Pz. II H. Pretty fun little tank to zip around, cap zones and try to flank enemies. The 50mm gun packs a punch. The biggest flaw is how much it bounces around, making it impossible to fire on the move and difficult to fire after an abrupt stop. Pz. III N. I got this one for warbonds last month, and I had my doubts about the performance short 75mm gun against higher tier tanks. I was completely wrong. The HEAT shell pens almost anything you face. It murders pretty much every hull-breakable vehicle, and those that aren't but still have thin armor the APHE shell can easily one-shot them. The tank itself is rather fast and agile and the spaced armor is a nice plus. Very fun vehicle. SMK. Slow and clumsy, but fun steel giant. A lot of cannon fodder crew members inside. It would be one of my favorites if I liked using Russian tanks. I didn't include vehicles I liked but have identical equivalents in their tree (Achilles 65 Rg.) or in other tree (Heavy Tank No.6). Least fun: Ha-Go Commander: No armor, it fires wet paper balls instead of shells. The biggest difference is the smoke grenades, but it doesn't make it worth it. RBT-5. BT-5 with two giant rockets that will never hit a damn thing. Meh.
  15. Why on Earth would they get a Russian bomber? If there's a country with interesting post-war bomber designs it's the US. I'd rather have a B-36 (with a reduced bomb load so people don't cry too much).
  16. Myth. Rockets are usually placed under the wings. They have a certain convergence point just like wing-mounted guns and if you shoot too close to the target you'll miss the target completely. The farther the rockets are placed in the wings, the greater the distance is. A Pe-3, Mosquito or anything with a wide wingspawn will never hit a thing if they just aim and launch rockets 2m away (unless they adjust their aim and shoot a little to the side, which can be done from longer distances just as easily). Perhaps the only plane that isn't affected by this is the Fw 190 (the one with the 210mm rockets and not the useless Panzerblitz ones), as it has a very short wingspan and the rockets have very big warheads that can kill with a near miss. Or they could go the other way and give a better reward for surviving instead of an insultingly small Safe and Sound reward that isn't even worth waiting until time runs out. Sure, some people won't care about throwing away their plane, but if you give them a decent reward that's, not just 0.045% of the SL cost of a tier 5 tank some people might reconsider. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, or so the saying goes. It's the experienced players that know exactly what they are doing. They know how they can avoid SPAA fire, what angle is good for a ramming attack and are much harder to fool with evasive maneuvers. Lock out wouldn't be a punishment, but a way to keep people from seeing crashing as a way to return to their tank faster with no consequences.
  17. I never said it solves the problem, just that it increases your survival chances. Some maps are tougher because of the lack of cover, but there is some in every map and often it's near the spawn. You can at the very least use hills or dunes to get a small degree of cover. And yes, things get ugly when the enemy starts spamming planes. There's nothing I hate more when I'm playing a hull-breakable SPAA than seeing the enemy spawn three planes while my team spawns nothing. When that happens I prioritize survival over everything else, even if it means leaving the enemy attacker/bomber attack with impunity and focus on the nearest threat instead (usually the fighters). If all attack at once you're usually screwed, but if you manage to take down at least one before they get close it's possible to survive, albeit not likely. Like I said, the plane took me by surprise. Kuban is not the best place to find cover, as you already stated, so I drove next to the rock while I waited for planes to spawn. A small bit of cover is better than nothing. Normally I would have been checking the minimap to keep track of planes spawning, try to find a better place for cover, try to shoot down the fighter before he got nearer and, if all else failed, try to move away from the impact zone. But I was too distracted to do that and only noticed the fighter due to the propeller noise. I honestly didn't thought I was going to survive so I just started shooting and hoping to take it with me, but my decision to stay next to the rocks payed off. Had he chosen to dive on me vertically or if a second plane had attacked me, yes, most likely I would have died, but this shows how even a bit of rock can save your life sometimes.
  18. Which is why you should always try to keep something between you and a potential rammer. I can't stress this enough. A rock, a house or anything available is best than nothing. In the video I made the huge mistake of getting distracted while I was playing, which nearly costed me the life of my Sd.Kfz. 6/2. Thankfully the rock I chose for cover absorbed the blow of what otherwise would have been a certain death by kamikaze. This isn't true. The plane crash behaves exactly like any other explosion would. If the stated figure of plane crashes being equivalent to 50kg bombs is accurate, the kill radius is 2m, so you pretty much need a direct hit to cause hull break. There is, however, secondary damage (fragmentation, etc), which can cause damage to vehicles beyond the kill zone if they have no armor. A plane can land 3 meters in front of a Marder and cause little to no damage, but it can land behind it at the same distance and kill the gunner and loader since there's no armor in the back. It can also land 10 meters away from a GAZ truck and destroy it since there's no armor at all.
  19. I'll list the type of game where I enjoyed using the planes the most or the least. Fun list: Arado Ar 234 C-3 (RB). Very fun rush bomber that is practically untouchable if flown correctly. You can drop bombs, climb and intercept the incoming bombers or stay high and try to attack distracted enemy jets. I had a very memorable match where I shot down two P-80s, a Meteor and lived to tell the tale. P.108B serie 2 (RB). The heavy bomber the Axis always needed but never got. A respectable 3500kg bombload or up to three torpedoes (you can actually have fun in Norway with this thing!) and decent. The defensive power is decent, the only flaw being that gunners are so close to each other that a single burst can take them out at once. Either way, it lights P-61s, P-38s and Mustangs up on fire pretty well. P-47D (Germany) (AB): Ridiculously undertiered, but fun to play nevertheless. A fun way of farming SL. Bf 109 E-7/U2 (AB): The only Bf 109 that gets a decent armament without going too far ahead in the BR department. It looks really nice, but unfortunately it shares the same BR as the P-47, so I use it much less. B-25J-20 (AB): I'm not a fan of bomber play in AB, but every time my gunners swat down another foolish tailsitter it brings a smile to my face. Not fun list: 1.0-2.0 BR fighters in general (with a few exceptions). Tier 1 biplanes, P-36s, G.50s, C.200s and the like. If it's armed with just rifle-caliber MGs and has to fight biplanes I'll probably hate it since biplane fights are usually consist of dull endless-turning furballs. SB2C (AB and RB). I hate how it handles, I hate its small bombload, slow speed, high BR, terrible cannons and the maps it has to play in. S.M. 79 (AB and RB). Slow, ugly, overtiered and there's way too many of them. Newer Italian bombers like the Z.1007 bis can do everything the Sparviero does and do it better. Pe-2 (RB). Small bombload. As a bomber it can't compete with medium or heavy bombers like the Pe-8, but as an attacker it's inferior to the IL-2s. It's a sitting duck for fighters and the map selection for Russian bombers at its tier is terrible. The Pe-2 is nothing but cannon fodder. Early Japanese planes. I can't pick a single one of them since I don't think I enjoyed any of them. Their guns are useless and they are really slow. Their only saving grace is that they're good turnfighters, but it's not my type of gameplay.
  20. Am I the only one who thinks we're missing out on many interesting vehicles because of "it doesn't fit the game's meta" reasons? The game's engine seems to be very flexible and they could create very interesting things if they wanted.
  21. It does. AI should at least try to emulate the capabilities and limitations of player-controlled tanks. If a player was capable of sniping you from halfway across the map because they saw a very small part of your turret above a hill, used X-ray vision to track you from behind trees, bushes and buildings and shot accurately while moving at high speed across the map you can be sure you'd find his name on the banned cheaters list pretty soon. I've also wondered about this. Why is the objective protect a bunch of SPG bots that never do anything useful and die if enemy tanks stand close to them for too long? I guess they're allergic to them or something but it makes no sense. I mean, maps are big and terrain is varied, there are plenty of AI targets they could have used. They could have easily made a more dynamic "breach the defensive line" mode, with different objectives, spawn points that get closer to the objective (like Break mode) as you capture points, having to break through concrete walls, fences and barbed wire obstacles to get through, flanking and wiping out the defenders. But the devs thought it was too much work, I guess.
  22. As a rule of thumb, if the SPAA has the chassis of an actual non-hullbreak-able tank (Coelian has the chassis of a Panther, Ostwind has the chassis of a Pz. IV, Crusader AA have the chassis that their name implies), it's more or less safe from ramming. But hull break does exist. I had a match yesterday where a dead plane crashed into and killed my Sd. Kfz 6/2, then the guy I just killed revenge-crashed into my Marder.
  23. So what is the test about? To prove or disprove the viability of cannon attackers in AB? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to go into a custom battle with an Hs 129 or Ju 87G to play 15 minutes against bots and find out that no, they aren't, as anyone familiar with the game mechanics should know that anything without explosive filler needs several well-placed shots to be effective, which is hard to do from the air and almost impossible with the time restriction and with up to three fighters that can spawn 450m behind you (as it happened in my last match ). So yeah, there's people actually trying to use planes in their intended use, but it has changed nothing. These people were probably using the planes the same way before the change. I strafed and killed tanks with the PBJ-1 H's cannon before hull break was a thing, and I'd still try if I got one. But all I get are these useless Hurricanes, IL-2-37s and even the Fw 190s with Panzerblitz rockets that seem to have dummy warheads and do nothing even with a direct hit, which makes the kamikaze problem much worse. I can really understand why people would want to ram targets instead of trying to aim a gun with a shot requires more precision than threading a needle, with SPAAs and fighters shooting at you. I don't think they do not care and I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful to them, but I feel that they might be too detached from the actual gameplay to notice many of the flaws. So I guess the players have to act like testers so they can fix things, but although some changes seem to work (on paper at least), others make no sense at all. If reducing the number of planes per match is the point of the suggestion, I couldn't disagree more. The number of planes is completely fine, IMO. The distribution might not be (e.g. when one team steamrolls and spams planes), but if the suggestions already made were implemented (i.e. removal of collision damage, lock out time for the duration of the battle) it would be much more balanced. Say the battle lasts 15 minutes, up to one plane being spawned per minute and with attackers/bombers having a success rate of around 30%-50% (estimates by my personal experience), that's 5-7 kills by planes per match for all 32 players. That's level of success rate would allow planes to remain a tactically viable option without starving SPAAs from targets, still allowing all players to have equal chances to get planes and avoiding the unbalance that a system like the one in RB would bring. If the point is reducing kamikazes, a decent increase of the Safe and Sound award and the lock out penalty would be a much simpler solution. Maybe Safe and Sound could give SL and RP. For example, 500SL and 250 RP multiplied by the tier (1000 SL and 500 RP for tier 2, 1500 SL and 750RP for tier 3, etc). That bonus would still be modest, but very helpful to cover repair costs and also grind modifications. If they gave us a choice between being reckless, crash into a tank and having to wait out a penalty, or being careful, survive and get some RP to help us unlock FPE or a new type of ammo, who would choose the former? Only the most stubborn of kamikaze wannabes would choose to keep ramming.
  24. They should implement RATO units. Period.
  25. You can't really compare AB to RB in this respect. It's much harder to shoot down a plane in RB due to the lack of markers for vehicles and the lack of the lead marker when aiming, particularly with slow-firing high caliber cannons. Even shooting is risky, as it is a "Hey, I'm here, bomb me!" sign because of the tracers. To counter enemy air enemies it's probably much more cost-effective to bring a fighter, load up a couple of bombs, destroy an enemy tank or two and then engage enemy planes instead of spawning a SPAA there.
  26. It's probably because it's really easy to survive in an Ostwind or Wirbelwind and make SL with them. They can even defend themselves in a pinch. For example, with my Sd.Kfz. 6/2 I have 91 air kills, 39 ground kills and 30 deaths. With the Ostwind I have 126 air kills, 42 ground kills and 17 deaths (mostly by my spawn being overrun). With the Wirbelwind I have 100 air kills, 21 ground kills and only 6 deaths.
  27. Yes, I get you. I wasn't referring specifically to this thread, though, but generally to all complaint threads. This one is actually more constructive than most. It might be a test of some sort, but I honestly don't understand what's it supposed to be about. It addresses no problems and only introduces new ones. For all I know they might only be adding cannon attackers to test the recently added hit cam.
  28. Yeah, it's always the same story with these threads. You make a post that tries to be constructive and add solutions, then some new poster (who obviously never bothered reading the rest of the thread and only comes to vent) begins posting using the same old tired arguments, proposes the same old "solutions" that have been posted a thousand times (that are often more about getting revenge on plane users than about balancing the game), then there's the same circlejerk of the usual posters that keep coming back to complain and bury the constructive posts below a mountain of whining posts. It gets tiring sometimes. So... Either they don't play their game to find out the flaws and balance issues or they do and just don't care about them. Either option speaks very poorly of the developers.
  29. I played Assault and just checked again in a test drive as well with several tanks. Same results. The green/yellow/red cross works up to 600m. After that it turns white and the red outline shows up to a little over 1km. Maybe you guys are experiencing a glitch?
  30. Did you miss a lot? Each bombload costs 2.6k SL, so if you dropped bombs 10 times and missed 7 it would explain the SL loss.
  31. It's been like that for a while now. There was an update several months ago (but I think less than a year) where the distance of the green cross was reduced to about 700m. After that and up to 1km you can still see the red outline of the enemy tank, but the little cross doesn't change colors. At 1km and more you have to rely on your own aiming. There were surprisingly few complaints when the change happened, probably because most engagements happen well within 1km. You are still capable of seeing enemy markers showing you the distance, so it's not like RB and its invisible tanks. Use the vertical notches on your crosshair for ranging (every little notch represents 200m, so if the marker says the enemy is 1km away you need to elevate your gun five notches, six notches if the target is 1.2km away etc. It's actually easy to do and, IMO, it's much more fun than simply shooting at the green cross all the time.
  32. Did I ever say they should be free or anything of the sort? No, I didn't. They cost 1500 War bonds which, as you said yourself, means you have to grind at the very least two tasks for at least 25 days. I don't know about anyone else, but that takes anywhere between 15 minutes and 1 hour a day for me. Is that much grind for a piece of virtual shrubbery you don't even get to choose really worth it? I find it expensive, particularly compared to the price of a premium vehicle, but if you find it worth it then great for you.
  33. Again, what's the effective distance for most SPAAs? About a kilometer and a half is a generous estimation. Planes would only need to bomb from outside of this distance (more difficult, but possible). You might have more success against strafers and rocket users, but such attacks would most likely end up being fatal for both players. About area for SPAAs being limited, this is because air maps aren't made for ground units. See any ground map and compare the playable area versus the total size of the map. The areas made for ground units are specifically tailored. They are much more detailed (buildings and trees look better, there are rocks for cover, etc). To let ground units into air battles maps would have to be adapted, with ground most likely limited to certain small areas of the map as remaking the whole map would be too much work. That said, it would be interesting to have SPAAs defending airfields in Domination mode and the like. It's just a fraction of the players who think like that. Most are too focused on the grind or on improving their KDR to care about winning or losing.
  34. "Free" as in "you pay no money for it". "Stupidly expensive" as in "You need to grind a lot of tasks to get it because the price in warbonds is too high for a single miserable piece of bushes or a random road sign", though I guess the latter definition is more subjective. To be honest, if you're putting that amount of effort on it you can also do the third task for a couple of weeks and get a premium vehicle instead, which is what I've been doing.
  35. You can also get "free" 3d items by buying them with warbonds. They're stupidly expensive (as they are if you buy them with GE), but the option is there.
  36. Sounds like you don't play air battles at all. Few bombers stay high because they're fodder for fighters. Most of them dive at the first sign of danger. Heavy bombers would be the least of your concerns, attackers and fighters loaded with bombs would be your biggest threats. Funny you mention Stukas, as they get 1000kg bombs as early as 2.0 BR. P-47s with bombs and rockets would also be lethal. Then there's the technical limitations, as playable areas for SPAAs would be very small. So you'd be restricted to a small portion of the map, you'd only be able to reach targets that get within a couple kilometers from you and fly at low altitudes and you'd be a sitting duck much like AI targets are. Doesn't really sound fun for SPAAs. I mean it because of the technical part of the game. When you get repairs in AF you basically respawn in a new plane, which is something you can't do on tanks. Unless such a system is implemented (with or without the repairs) it would be impossible, as "bailing out" of the tank means death with no possibility of respawning. But the majority of people are playing the grind, which is the reason why people tend to make stupid decisions or go for the cheap kills. For example, does GAZ truck with 4 machine guns represent any kind of threat? Absolutely not, it's as useless as it can be, but people will kamikaze into it for the free SL and RP. Depends on the player and the situation of course, it's not 100% effective. Some beginners will panic whenever their tank is damaged, even with MGs. Some experienced players might not have be paying attention to the air and worry about a potential bomb or rocket attack following the strafe run. On some tanks you can damage modules slightly or even kill a crew member or two with some luck, so it's not entirely useless. This kind of system works in RB where there are no markers at all, making it a bit more fair for both air and ground. I don't know about squadron battles, but I believe they use a respawn system rather than the air battle system used in regular AB and less players per team (correct me if I'm wrong). With time being limited, it's extremely important to have visibility to pick a proper target and plan an attack run. SPAAs don't have to be invisible to be effective.
  37. The only difference I've noticed lately is that howitzers seem to be much more lethal than before. Ignoring them is a sure way of losing and even if people target them quickly it's not uncommon to see they drained more than 1/4th of the base HP's gone by the time they're finally killed. Anyway, tier 4 and 5 are made so you lose SL playing them, sometimes even with a premium account. I'm personally still making a profit even at tier 5 (I have premium). If I'm losing too much or if the team is useless I just quit to cut my losses. Most of the time just getting to 10th wave with less than 5 deaths is enough to make a profit even without premium account bonuses, unless you're using a very expensive plane. Removing non-vital mods can make costs a bit cheaper as well. The Japanese map (Zhengzou or whatever it's called) is the worst at all tiers. All of their bombers get cannons. They're also extremely tough. G5Ns need half a belt of 20mm Minengeschoß shells directly on one of their wings to bring them down. Do 217s and Lancasters die or lose their elevator when they're hit with a burst of the MK 108, but G8Ns keep just flying and murder you with their 6 cannons. I simply stopped playing that map and quit if it comes up, or just spawn a couple of times and quit before I lose too much. 30k SL lost for 2k RP earned isn't worth it.
  38. The number of people who have too much SL and no more vehicles left to research compared to those struggling to get a profit and grind is probably quite small. In any case, by the time an enemy plane drops its bombs it will probably have less than 30 seconds left in that air battle. Hardly a game-breaking issue. The biggest reason I've been vehemently opposed against most of the proposed punishments is that there is no way to avoid punishing innocent players. Encouraging SPAAs by reducing some of the absurd repair costs would be useful, yes, but some people just don't want to spend the match waiting for targets to appear (and if your team dominates, the enemy might not even spawn planes. It happens a lot when I get a Warbonds task that requires SPAA kills) or play defensively. Sometimes having too many SPAAs is detrimental to the team. About reducing marker visibility, I'm not sure about it, but 500m seems way too low considering that SPAAs can kill you at more than twice that distance. Planes can be a distraction. If there's an enemy engaged in close combat with an ally strafing him might be enough to distract it and let your ally get the win. And yes, if penalties are too harsh (fixed lock out time for dying, SL and spawn loss, for example) people won't bother spawning planes at all. Some people want that, but I think the majority wants a balanced game for both air and ground units. If you're ok with bombers dropping 500kg and bigger unfuzed bombs from altitudes where your shells can't harm them. It would surely be fun for planes. This happens in air battles and it's a good idea, but there's one big difference: Landing at an airfield repairs and rearms you. Conditions for death on planes are very different to tanks. You can land a "dead" plane, repair and respawn again. You'll get a death on your stats, pay for repairs but still be able to use the same plane. On tanks once you're declared dead you can't repair or do anything. Unless they implement a similar system that repairs your tank at a spawn point by respawning you I don't see this system working.
  39. There's plenty of good advice in this thread: I went through the same phase, and I think many other players did. The game does a very poor job at explaining the basics, and there's so much to learn that it can be overwhelming. But the advice is here, you can find more on the wiki or Youtube tutorials, like people already suggested. You will be clubbed hard and you will have to learn from it, be willing to learn from your mistakes and be patient. If you can't do that the game probably isn't for you.
  40. RP and SL, for air points (if you don't have them already) and, most importantly, for the fun of shooting down an enemy plane. At least that's the reason why I like play SPAAs. Consider the limitations of the current damage mechanics. There is no reliable way of knowing the "intent" of a player, and I doubt it will ever be. "Crashed" or "Shot down" are the only conditions. To implement a punishment system you only have two realistic choices: Punish everyone who dies regardless of the cause or punish only those who "crash". One punishes everyone, innocent and guilty alike, in a system that makes you die very often. The other lets a few rammers get unpunished under certain conditions. The removal of collision damage ensures the rammers are pretty much harmless anyway. I think letting damaged planes go unpunished is a fair compromise. Say you spawned an attacker, dropped your bombs and still have 23 seconds of time before you return to your tank. You still have MGs or maybe cannons. It doesn't matter if you choose to attack ground vehicles, to fly away or crash/get shot down, you'll have to wait those 23 seconds anyway. Wouldn't you choose to attack ground enemies and maybe, if you're lucky, damage or kill an SPG or SPAA?
  41. It should be done along with the removal of collision damage. If you survived all that time, if crashing gives you no advantages and also locks you out of your tank, why not wait for time to run out and get Safe and Sound instead? (It would work even better if Safe and Sound rewards were increased considerably, by the way). It's not a penalty for dying. It's a penalty for crashing. Penalties for dying make no sense since you have SPAAs shooting and interceptors spawning behind you. You're expected to die often. If you crash on a head-on you deserve the penalty for not being careful. Of course, attackers and bombers that run out of weapons will fly off and wait until the time runs out. What were you expecting? Hanging around just to give SPAAs another chance to kill you would be absurd. If the player chooses to do nothing they would be wasting their air points, leaving their tank vulnerable on the ground and blocking his/her teammates from spawning planes until the air battle runs out, so they could at least try to use that ordnance and shoot soft targets or tanks if they have forward-facing guns to at least get a few assists. Fighters could do the same. No air target to engage? Strafe soft vehicles or harass tanks. The only thing that would change would be that planes would not have a chance to ram a tank and go back to their tank like nothing had happened.
  42. Sounds like a fair penalty. It removes one of the biggest reasons to crash or bail out. The penalty isn't absurdly harsh in case you crash accidentally and in case your bomber gets rammed by a fighter he also gets penalized.
  43. I don't want to sound rude by telling you stuff like "learn to play", so I won't. However, it sounds like you're not very familiar with the Italian designs, so you probably haven't flown them at all. You're probably facing some more experienced players who already grinded their way through the Italian tree, who are by now familiar with their strengths and weaknesses and know well how to club you. I spaded all fighters (except the tier 1 monoplanes) up to the Bf 109G-14/AS. They're really nowhere nearly as OP as people claim them to be. 12.7mm Breda-SAFATs are actually weaker than US .50 cals (but better than Japanese ones). Default belts are terrible. 7mm Breda-SAFATs are like shooting hard candy. They in no way compare to a 20mm cannon. Flight performance is good all around, but you'll find a lot of planes that outturn, outrun, outclimb and/or outgun them. US planes like P-47s and P-51s can easily get a speed advantage. Bf 109s can easily outclimb them. Japanese planes can outturn them (if your Ki 43 can't do it you're probably doing something wrong). The Ba.65 is not exactly overpowered. It's slow and heavy (for a monoplane). It only does well against biplanes because, well, they're biplanes. It doesn't take much firepower to kill them. If it finds any sort of monoplane it gets hopelessly outmatched (makes sense, as it's not a fighter).
  44. Yes. IMO, the whole interface should be more customizable, like the position and size of elements such as the radar, the damage indicator, the chat window, etc. Also the text size, as some of the text isn't comfortable to read if you're far from the TV screen.
  45. I think I got it. Convergence range, then . Thanks for the replies.
  46. So what exactly was the issue back then? That people got back to their tanks faster that way? Locking players out of their tanks until the air battle is over if they crash has been proposed as a solution. Other than that there were absolutely no advantages for ramming as there wouldn't be if collision damage was removed. It might be some people's pet peeve but not a real problem with game balance.
  47. I reached tier 5. I got the F-84 and I'm now researching the first G.91. Aside from the F-84, G.56, Bf 109 G-14/AS and a few tier 1 monoplanes and a few Sparvieros everything is spaded. My honest opinion? The fighters are good, at least everything after the first C. 202, but if you like variety there's not much to see. Performance improves as you go up in tiers, but you keep unlocking more and more planes with a couple of Breda-SAFATs and MG 151s, German engines and jack-of-all trades performance. The G.55 is probably the peak, but after tier 4 I believe the enemy planes start to outperform it much more easily. The attacker branch is... weird. Fun in its own way. Ba.65 eats biplanes for breakfast, but the bombload is pathetic. The Breda 88 also has a pathetic bomb load, but three 12.7mm Breda-SAFATs are decent firepower at its tier. The P.108A, however, was a mixed bag of frustration and fun. Using it seems like pure masochism at first, hitting anything with the 102mm seems impossible. Get some mods, a bit of practice and one of those rare chances of being left alone by enemy fighters and you can enjoy cracking tanks and pillboxes in a way a Hs 129 can only dream of. The bomber branch was much more fun. BR. 20 DR was a surprisingly good machine for its tier, capable of competing with bombers like the Ju 88 A-4. SM.79s are woefully overtiered, but it's hardly a surprise since they've been like that since they were in the German tree. Z.1007 is an average bomber, not good but not bad either. My favorites, however, are the P.108B series. 3.5 tons of bombs or 3 torpedoes as well as a defensive armament of several Breda-SAFAT turrets (excellent to light enemy fighters on fire) make it a great compliment to the BV 238s it's usually placed with. The downside is that it's rather slow and very fragile, with gunners being very vulnerable to enemy fire. 1700GE
  48. I didn't. He said he hates being killed by rockets launched one second before impact. There are absolutely no advantages for doing this, a rocket launched 2m away will impact the target with the same accuracy as one launched 100m away or more. So maybe what he really hates is being killed by rockets? I don't know. I honestly doubt that people really feel any better when they're killed by rockets and the aircraft flies away to get some miserable 100 SL on Safe and Sound rewards instead of crashing, but then again they might. That's why I'm asking. Are we even playing the same game? This is the game where people from the same team shoot each other down trying to shoot down the same plane. This is the game where fighters dive on the first attacker they see, chase it to the end of the map like a pack of starving dogs after a steak and think tailsitting a bomber with 6 .50 cals aimed at their face is worth it. This is the game where bombers rush into the first base they see, drop bombs and get killed only to join a new game and do it over again So why exactly do people think this fantasy of "people will be more careful" is by any means realistic? Tanks already have limited spawns, repair costs and have to be unlocked to be used. What's the percentage of people who actually use them carefully and play to survive instead of throwing them into the meat grinder for a faster grind? Probably the same percentage of people who throw their planes away for a faster grind instead of using them carefully (and getting the full potential out of them).
  49. The only thing capable of quickly and reliably destroying the tracks of a tank from the air is an explosion. Like an explosion from a collision. No collision damage = no alleged incidents of planes being tracked by planes before bombs are dropped. Exactly. You have to recognize which situations and which vehicles will paint a bullseye on you for planes to attack, be careful and act accordingly. At the very least pay attention to the minimap, look up every now and then and don't sit still while the planes are murdering you. I mean, there's some advice on how to increase your survival chances posted here and in other threads. There's a lot you can do to fight the planes and the kamikazes, but there are a few players who choose to ignore it and play the victim, trying to justify their incompetence and inability to adapt by claiming the game is unfair and planes are OP. I guess you mean rockets. I just have a couple of questions. Imagine the plane who murdered you with HVARs from 20m and crashed into you didn't. He instead murdered you with HVARs from 300 meters away, pulled up and killed two of your teammates in the same air battle. Would you complain any less about it? Because if a player can kill you from 20m, he can easily kill you from 100, 200 or 300m away. As for the other question, imagine he did suicide. He payed repair costs and lost a spawn. You lost your tank, you are heading back to the hangar while he was credited a "cheap" kill and even if he had survived he wouldn't have spawned a second plane on that battle either. How does this make the game any more enjoyable?
  50. It really depends on the type of ammo and the weapon you use (not all 20mm cannons are equal, for example) as well as the target you're shooting at. If the target has armor or a tough structure the HE shells might detonate outside without doing much damage to internal components, while APHE (despite having less explosive filler) will go through and detonate on the inside to cause more damage. The opposite is true with soft targets, where HE can easily rip them apart but APHE can overpen and deal less damage. Pure AP will only do a hole if there's nothing on its way, but if you hit a vital module it will cause some damage to it (hit a spar and the plane will lose a wing, for example). API pens less than pure AP by having less kinetic energy (doesn't necessarily deal less damage), but has chances of causing fires.
  51. So it's just for decoration as it is now? But what was the useful distance of such devices? I remember seeing there was a dial pilots had to adjust depending on the target's wingspan, but how did that work?
  52. Capping points give no points to spawn planes. You have to wait around 3 minutes while your team holds more cap points than the other before you get a "free" air point. And yes, it's map design, but that's where team play should come in. The team should always try to keep an escape route open. If the enemy traps you then the team is being outplayed. I know, the quality of random teams leaves much to be desired, but the planes are not to blame for that. I said you should behind any obstacles, such as buildings and rocks. And I said you should move as much as the terrain allows to avoid bullets that might go through the buildings' hitboxes, which is possible unless you're behind a very small house or rock. I posted a video a while back where I do something like this: First I see that enemy I just killed is spawning a plane. I'm in a Marder, so it means there's a very high chance of being revenge bombed by the guy. I try to hide behind the houses that give cover from three flanks, but then it becomes obvious it will try to attack me from above. He's too high for me to attack with my gun or MG, so I face him with my thickest armor, start moving and try to change direction to avoid the collision at the last second. It worked. You won't be able to dodge all kamikazes, but your chances of surviving improve considerably. Making excuses? Not at all, I've always said the current system could use some adjustments (removal of collision damage being the priority). I'm as much of an air player in AB GF as I am a SPG and SPAA player. Being on both sides gives you a good idea of what are the advantages, disadvantages, tactics and limitations of both air and ground. Capture point.
  53. So I was using my F-84G when I noticed it's equipped with a gyro gunsight. I think I understand the basic principles (the moving reticle shows where bullets are supposed to go when the aircraft is moving), but what was the useful range? Is it functional and useful in WT or is it just there for decoration?
  54. Because it's new. Expect it to be changed when beta test is open and Gaijin's statistics show that Italian planes aren't being clubbed enough.
  55. If you get stuck on a cap point with no exit route and the enemy is spamming bombers on you, chances are that it's too late to turn the tide on that game. Cap points are supposed to be dangerous and are a priority target for planes, which means you should be extra careful to avoid being trapped in the first place. Yes, some buildings' hitboxes are wonky, but bullets are not completely lethal except for GAZ trucks and the German Sd. Kfz.6/2. For the best results you should never remain still while you're being strafed. It makes it harder for the strafer to guess your location and hit you accurately. Kuban has several buildings since it was updated. Ash river has rocks pretty much everywhere. If you're on a SPAA or lightly armored SPG you should pay attention to your surroundings and the state of the game. If the game goes well play offensively. If the game starts going bad, prioritize your defense. It's honestly not that hard to do. That's when you accelerate, change direction and try not to be predictable. Because pilot snipes aren't common, right? Oh wait, they are.
  56. Wing mounted guns are set so their trajectories meet at a certain point (convergence distance). This distance is set with the "gun targeting distance" in the game, so shooting at something that is closer or farther from the convergence point is much less effective and can even miss completely if the target is too close or too far from you. Nose mounted weapons don't have this effect, which is one of their advantages. Another thing to consider if you're using early Spits is that they're armed with rifle-caliber MGs, while Yaks and Bf 109s (E-3 model and later) have more powerful 20mm cannons and/or heavy MGs.