something tells me only someone that is better with insult would impress you lol. but I’m not going to respond again unless you actually say something useful other wise this is going to go way way off topic
I see this thread is still just as wholesome and friendly as always…
Anyway…
The inconsistency is getting worse. I can play one game, at the same BR, and AF AAA doesn’t do anything, and then another I get sniped 2km out…
What would actually impress me is if these dedicated fighter jocks finally came out and simply admitted that they don’t care about PTFO and only cared about only TDM regarding ARB.
But they’re so dishonest with their arguments so coming clean just isn’t possible with them. Hell, they already got their compromise with the forward AF AA being removed and they’re still crying that it’s not good enough.
They won’t be satisfied until AB, ARB and ASB are exactly like World of Warplanes. The modes are already enough of a headache without some ADHD CoDminds trying to make it worse.
A flag? Adorable.
3 Likes
Has always been like that
Took your time to post all of that. Cute.
Yet I’m not the one crying in the forums because I refused to PTFO and lost to a single bomber. So jokes still on you. Keep coping.
1 Like
Do you think the people who complain about “fighter jocks” not playing the objective realise that the single biggest objective in Air RB is to eliminate the enemy team? It’s an elimination gamemode, not TDM, most matches end with the enemy team eliminated, and it’s the role for fighters. Bombers have a different objective to fighters, it’s in their name.
It’s pretty funny that the fighter objective can be completely cheesed by other players and classes by simply flying around an airfield, whereas you can’t just hold E to reach out of the cockpit,grab the bomber’s bombs and diffuse them on the way down. Though maybe asymmetric auto ticket bleed is a parallel to this for attackers, just that’s entirely out of player hands.
@GNDM_Panzer chill out and stop being so hostile. We’re here to debate airfield AA, not to call each other noobs and sling insults.
1 Like
Takes 2 to tango, fella. Anyways…
Most fighters have capable armaments and munitions capable of dealing with the majority of the ground targets, so the continued excuse about fighters not being able to ground pound is simply dishonest.
This is dishonest. It is not listed nor named as the biggest objective.
It is an option, just like it’s an option to;
Destroy all AI air
Destroy all AI ground
Destroy all bases and the enemy AF - Though this is BR dependent.
All options, minus the last because it’s nuanced to BR, are on the table to win the match. Players simply choose to prioritize enemy player elimination - Which is perfectly reasonable - Until it becomes a situation where that option is untenable. So when it comes to a wise player, the other options are weighed and chosen upon if they genuinely want to win. And if they’re just unlucky or an idiot? Well, sometimes you bring the loss upon yourself and other times it’s simply out of your hands. It is literally impossible to win every single match you partake in. That’s just life.
2 Likes
A very significant number of fighters in this game either have no suspended ordnance or very little. Take spitfires for example - only later ones get bombs, and that’s a single tiny bomb until you get to the Mk 18, 22 and 24. Typhoons get 2 bomb drops. Yak 3s don’t get anything. La-5s and 7s get a couple of bombs, 9s and 11s get nothing. Sure, American fighters have pretty good carry capacity across the board, but that still doesn’t let them stack up against dedicated attackers and bombers. And most fighters that can carry bombs, only carry one or two small ones (like 50kg, 60kg, 100kg, 250kg, 250lb, 500lb). I don’t even know if the 50kg ones can pop light pillboxes, but they certainly can’t pop regular pillboxes.
A spitfire can do bugger all to destroy anything other than howitzers with its piddly .303s, and the moment it destroys a few, the new midmap AA mechanics will start lighting it up.
So that leaves you in a lot of cases with just cannon fire. Which, seeing as you’re using that to shoot players, and given the limited capacity of fighters, is gonna run out pretty quick, and can’t damage tanks at all in most cases, especially with air belts loaded. And then you have to RTB to get more bombs and ammo after destroying only a couple of ground units, and by that time the game’s already over.
To say nothing of how silly it is to carry ground ordnance at the start of the match, seeing as that’s sabotaging your earlygame impact and is gonna leave you at a huge energy disadvantage against enemy fighters.
So no, most fighters don’t have armaments and munitions capable enough to equalise a ticket disadvantage.
Does it have to be listed or named? It’s an elimination gamemode. This is how elimination gamemodes work. Are there other win conditions? Yes. Are those other win conditions achieved nearly as frequently? No. Is it reasonable for an alternative win condition to be achieved solely because of an AI game mechanic that requires no player skill or even input? No. And that lattermost one is the topic of debate, so engage with it.
Like it or not, playing to destroy all enemy players in a fighter is playing an objective - it’s playing the fighter objective.
The entire point of this thread is to debate over whether it’s reasonable for said option to be untenable purely because someone is trying to learn how to draw a perfect circle in the sky above their airfield. We are not debating whether some losses are inevitable regardless of what you try.
It’s pretty ridiculous for the loss to be “simply out of your hands” because somebody fled to their airfield and camped, letting a busted game mechanic play for them.
Instead of calling others idiots, dishonest, and generally insinuating that you’re better than them, you should learn some humility, listen to others’ contributions to the topic, and engage honestly in the discussion.
3 Likes
When taking a step back and reviewing this on a purely objective basis, GNDM PANZER@live is right.
Since a decade, winning in air comes down to
Destroy all Player,
Destroy all AI Air,
Destroy all AI ground
Destroy all bases and the enemy AF - Though this is BR dependent.
-like he said.
Additionally, this “busted” game mechanic was in Warthunder since the start, and objectively speaking, the Ju288 did everything right.
He denied you the kill and his team won due to superior AI Ground pounding.
General AirRB isn’t just plain TDM, it’s more to it since a decade and ever has been.
3 Likes
It’s not “more to it”, it’s less to it actually. Less skill, less fun, less teamplay.
But the JP2GMD guy hates air RB so it’s not surprisi g he’s defending whatevwr game mechanic is making this mode less enjoyable. He also absolutely sucks at Warthunder.
I’d take everything Loofah says with the smallest grain of salt. Dude is an absolute stereotypical fighter jock that only wants air to be TDM between fighters with no bombers, no strike aircraft, no AI and no AF.
He has terrible arguments and is flagrantly dishonest simply to push his agenda.
He’s quite literally the RazorVon/AlvisWisla for ARB.
1 Like
you push your agenda via insulting others, discredit everyone that does not agree with you.
nice habbit
also im agreeing with 100% ARB needs a change, especially toptier.
but as it is right now, the main goal is to kill the enemy team, hell its even saying in the loading screen “destroy enemy fighters”
groundpounding and base bombing is completly fine, especially for planes with that intended role.
wich is also not the topic of this thread
plain AF AA camping whenever feeling unsafe is a stupid way to play the game, you stretch the game for the enemy, for your teammates and for yourself. in the time you play NASCAR Roleplay you couldve already be in a new game and get more rewards.
its just stupid to base your whole gameplay on AF Camping
2 Likes
and since the start it was an issue, just not so much bc AF AA since then got buffed every so often
On this we agree. It’s stupid and counterproductive in entirety. We also agree that ARB needs adjustments.
Larger maps with more spread out objectives for higher tier aircraft? Absolutely.
Less players per team on small maps? Absolutely.
More objectives? Absolutely.
More airfields? Absolutely.
Exit zones for those who want to leave but can’t land due to being chased or damaged too much? Not against it.
Adjustment to ticket bleed and AI behavior and AI types? Sure.
Removing AF AA any further, however, isn’t one of them and shouldn’t even be on the table for discussion.
4 Likes
“destroy enemy fighters” on the loading screen includes AI controlled ones.
1 Like
Lost to an airfield camping mirage who would only fight while in range of the proxy-fuse SPAA.
But nooo, just PTFO and everything will be fine… despite the fact that I simply do not have the time, fuel and ammo to do so.
I’d say you’re dealing with nonsense…
This game is built on imbalance…
That is that there will never be a team where team play is preferred…
A balanced duel, for a team game, I imagine like this …
- 12 vs 12 ( or 16 vs 16 )
- eg these combinations of aircraft
- La-7 vs. FW 190
- F4U vs. A6M
- P-47D vs. Ki-43-II
- F8 Crusader vs. MiG 17
- F86 vs. MiG 15 etc.etc.
Unless these sets are in individual battles, there’s no arguing - it’s the other side’s fault that their team lost the game.
Gaijin supplied a huge amount of planes and they have to somehow install them in MM and BR…
So, from completely logical arguments, not all players in the battle will play exactly the same style…
This match type is suitable for DUEL type events, but not for any of the current game modes…
Some go for head-on combat, some are comfortable maneuvering in a small space, some like to play at heights, some have an airplane with which they have to sneak sideways like a scout, because otherwise they have no chance…
And everyone wants to re-arm/repair at a secure airport, nothing unrealistic about that… !
Of course, there will be a certain amount of players using AAA cover, but it’s up to the other team’s players to deal with it ( ground AI, rearm, or use the appropriate aircraft )
This game seems ideal for a fighter-bomber, or simply a multi-purpose aircraft … !
I imagine a fight where it would only be about the player’s pilot experience as follows:
- airstart height 7000 m
- box B-17/B24 or He 177 probably AI, live players will not enjoy it
- protection/attack - P-51D / FW-190D
- whoever played badly lost quickly, without the possibility of repair (returning to the airport, repair and climbing to the height is pointless…)
It’s good that this game offers many ways to play it…
This game isn’t a sword fight, where it’s about knocking out your opponent with a quick strike…
En garde!
How is it offloading consequences onto anyone else to be able to safely land and repair?
The other team isn’t facing any consequences for that? Unless of course you mean you have to dogfight and lose to me when I have fuel and ammo again… That’s understandable, but air combat is the point of the game.
It is not a players fault that the designers 60 years ago only gave the plane eg 120 rounds of ammo… War Thunder’s 16vs16 format does not represent reality, so there was no point for the historical plane to carry enough rounds to wipe out some whole airforces. These planes are put in situations for which they were not designed, that is not the players fault, or the designer’s fault, it is Gaijin’s fault. Wtf is your problem if you’re blaming the player for choosing to fly any particular plane?
Tell me, in Ukraine atm, can the Russian air force freely follow a Ukrainian fighter back to its base 300km behind the front lines? Does the Ukrainian jet not get a free-pass for rearming because theyr’e behind hundreds of km of integrated air defences? Sure, if you can suppress those air defences you can attack airfields, but that’s putting too much work in for War Thunder fighter players… They just feel entitled to a free kill against a defenceless opponent because they happen to have more fuel or ammo.
Honestly, waiting till a better player has to land only to kill them there is every bit as cowardly and scummy gameplay as people who exploit their airfield AA or who hide in space or who try to spawn-camp in ground battles.
I don’t want airfields to be exploited either, but there are much better ways of ensuring that, like having the points timer ticking away as long as you (and everyone left on your team) are near your airfield. Or perhaps having mediocre aa but more numerous airfields, dispersed further apart and not marked on the enemy map (why should the enemy be told where to fly for a free kill?).
There are so many ways to prevent people from exploiting airfield aa, while also giving people the chance to land and rearm… But apparently, it requires more than 2 brain cells to think up such solutions!
5 Likes
120 rounds of ammo is a plenty and its player’s fault to:
- fire it all and end up with nothing with enemy nearby
- choose a plane with low amount of ammo while not being good at aiming.
I haven’t played low ammo planes till I was confidwnt enough I can kill several people.with 60 rounds od 23mm. If I wasn’t, I would have played something that has way more. It’s that simple.
If you have failed in a dogfight, or lost all ammo, why it is the enemy that has to pay, and not you?
They have i invested their energy, their ammo, maybe even they have taken damage and now you can reset it all, just because you think you deserve it. You deserve to get clapped.
2 Likes