A Better Solution to the Current Ground RB CAS Imbalance Problem

A Better Solution to the Current Ground RB CAS Imbalance Problem

Note: This post is aimed at discussing the existing Ground RB (historical performance) mode, which includes fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground vehicles. The author is very fond of this mode and enjoys playing all three roles and engaging in their interactions.

This thread is NOT for discussing new modes or reforming the fundamental structure of the current mode!!!

The core idea of this post is based on one premise: the author firmly believes that in Cold War and later BR brackets, SPAA units—when operated correctly and on non-extremely unreasonable maps—are fully capable of suppressing any CAS in a 1v1 situation. In the worst case, it would still end up as a one-for-one trade, which is already a victory for the SPAA player. Many of the current complaints that “CAS is too strong” actually come down to two reasons:

  1. Low rewards and boredom—though the boredom aspect has been greatly improved with the addition of reconnaissance drones;
  2. Nearly 90% of SPAA players are under-skilled, or lack a clear understanding of the true role of SPAA. In the author’s view, the duties of SPAA should be:
  1. Suppressing enemy air superiority to assist friendly CAS units in gaining advantage;
  2. Preventing enemy CAS from carrying out attacks, which can be achieved mainly by:
    > 1. Destroying the CAS aircraft itself;

    > 2. Forcing enemy CAS to waste significant time engaging SPAA and to expend all effective ordnance on SPAA;

    > 3. Intercepting enemy-launched air-to-ground munitions.

    > This does NOT include ensuring the long-term survival of the SPAA unit itself.

Why the Current Direction is Wrong

The current changes are fundamentally misguided

Why is it wrong?

  1. Such a reform would destroy the last 10 years of game system development. Over the past decade, tech tree design and system changes have all been built on the foundation that “fighters and attackers do not share spawn points.” A hasty overhaul risks creating far more problems.
  2. Many players have invested huge amounts of time and money into this system. Changing it would destroy their enthusiasm, and worse, lead them to doubt whether investing further time and money is worthwhile—if vehicles earned through painful grinding suddenly become useless due to a single line in a patch note, players will be more likely to abandon the game.
  3. Air-to-ground interaction is one of the game’s unique features. Aircraft kills are relatively efficient, but their spawn cost is also high—this is a reasonable reward system. The real issue is not the system itself, but the balance of air-to-ground combat. (If the feedback is good, I’ll write another post analyzing this.)

So, How to Solve This Problem?

Take inspiration from the reconnaissance function of SPAA vehicles: give all SPAA a similar new modification, where for every aircraft shot down, the spawn cost of friendly aircraft is reduced.


Why is This Solution Effective?

There are large numbers of incompetent SPAA players in Ground RB. They have no idea how to handle air-ground combat, end up being ineffective and dying, and then conclude that aircraft are “too OP.”

For example, in the G.91 era, many ZSU-23-4 players would open fire from over 2 km away, sit exposed without seeking cover after spawning, and fail to trade 1:1 with G.91s to protect their team. (Of course, the ZSU-23-4 was badly outclassed by the Gepard, but such cases are part of the game’s character. Compared to things like “VT4 and Leclerc at 12.0 while M1A1HC sits at 11.7,” this is actually balanced—haha.)

Another example: many Pantsir and VT1 players stay in the open when facing dampener-equipped AV-8Bs, allowing the AV-8B to simply fire all its rockets from ~8 km away, come back again, and destroy the SPAA. In such cases, SPAA are completely disadvantaged, and this is almost entirely a matter of player competence.


The Benefits

This change would encourage many experienced pilots to take up SPAA and directly confront enemy aircraft. It simultaneously addresses two issues: skilled players avoiding SPAA, and the fact that nearly 90% of current SPAA players are under-skilled.

As The Art of War says: “Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Skilled players will suppress enemy aircraft more effectively, and the gameplay will become far more engaging and competitive. Imagine: you’re an excellent pilot in SPAA who just denied enemy CAS—but do you abandon your SPAA to take off yourself? And how will the enemy pilot you just shot down seek revenge?

This change harms no one’s interests, is extremely simple to implement, and adds more character to the game. Reform instead of nerfing—two problems solved at once.

What Gaijin is trying to do, is to limit the number of aircrafts in battles as there is no real way to balance them.

Air units are used as a crutch and always will be.

1 Like

All I do is pit pilots on the ground against pilots in the sky

Nice.
Doesn’t change that many just want to play tanks and enjoy tank va tank combat. From the changes Gaijin is making, such people are not minority.

1 Like

Any tank player with a modicum of intelligence will realize that the changes I’m proposing have no direct bearing on them, but will indirectly improve their gaming experience.

By changing something they still don’t want to play?

People want to play tanks, change Gaijin is providing gives them more tank vs tank combat.

1 Like

I am a tank player myself, and I really hope that when I play a tank, someone will play SPAA to help me deal with the reconnaissance drone. And my changes will encourage more high-level SPAA players to appear.

Oh yes, someone might do it!

The balance shouldn’t be about „someone” doing it.

The change that Gaijin proposes is far better for people who just want tank vs tank combat. Of course what You propose should be added into the game with the change that Gaijin wants to implement.

Overlooking the insults thrown at the SPAA players masked as assumptions about the playerbase (which, personally, if i were you, i wouldnt make without any data to back them up, as people will inevitably end up checking your personal stats)…

This post couldve been simply a comment in your previous post.

Nevertheless, there are some confusing and contradicotry statements to be found.

Would you mind elaborating on how such proposed modification ISNT a change to fundamental structure of the Ground Battles? To my knowledge such modification would be unprecedented as there is not, to my knowledge, any game mechanic that lowers the SP cost of other players in players team.

Please don’t make duplicate threads, You can edit your post or post more informative comments in the other one. Updating a thread doesn’t mean you need to create a new one.

Thanks.

2 Likes