Airfield AAA Discussion Thread - Air Realistic Battles

Ah, a suggestion has to always include a poll.
So yes I will include a poll in my suggestion.

‘’ 7) Include a poll in your suggestion - Having a poll as part of your suggestion allows fellow users to quickly and easily show support for your idea. Besides the obvious convenience for other users, it also provides a good general overview of the support your idea garners over time.‘’

And about that, no. I did not send my map configuration to the devs, in part because it is not ready and in part because Im just a tech mod, this part is not my work. In this aspect Im just a regular player giving my ideas and opinions.

1 Like

Not only that but convoys also have SPAAa that are capable of shooting down planes. It makes ground pounding more challenging than before.


Yeah today got 1-burst shot down by M163 while maneuvering at 500km/h in… Ta-152H. So fun. We need more things like this for sure :)

1 Like

mhm- i was aware of this. I asked this independent from your upcoming suggestion.

As you created this thread it would be easy for you to add a poll to the first post - covering all aspects of this very complex topic and it would be easy to check the pulse of the community.

A poll could look like:

A) Do you have issues with Airfield AntiAircraftArtillery (af aaa) in Air RB?:
a) yes
b) no

If no - the direct to point E)
If yes - detailed feedback required.

B) Where are your issues located:
a) Prop BRs
b) Jet BRs
c) in both BR ranges

C) What are your issues with prop BR af aaa (multiple answers)?
a) af aaa is too strong
b) af aaa is too weak
c) af aaa is not consistent on all maps
d) prop BR af aaa is fine, i have just issues with jet BR af aaa

D) What are your issues with af aaa in jet BRs (multiple answer) ?
a) af aaa is too strong
b) af aaa is too weak
c) af aaa is not consistent on all maps
d) jet BR af aaa is fine, i have just issues with prop BR af aaa

E) Game play: af aaa is
a) helpful and supports my game play
c) not helpful and not supporting my gameplay
c) not affecting my game play

F) Necessity of af aaa:
a) Essential
b) Has to be removed
c) I don’t care

G) Your play in Air RB
a) mostly fighter aircraft
b) mostly strike aircraft
c) mostly bomber aircraft

H) I fly in Air RB mainly
a) in order to grind the Tech Tree (TT)
b) in order to earn SLs
c) in order to have fun as i like being a pilot

I) I see and use Air RB mainly as
a) a Team Death Match mode
b) a PvP mode (player vs player)
c) a PvE mode (plaver vs environment)
d) a combined PvP/PvE mode

So - this poll would give this whole tread a structure, is neutral regarding the wording and would help to clarify what we are talking about. A problem of a few or for a significant number of players.

Without structuring this whole topic will end like the old one - 6 years and 2.035 replies:


I sure agree we need longer match time. Then the whole issue would mostly disappear because one team fulfils enough of the objectives to drain enemy tickets.

Fighter bois might focus on the first objective/air supremacy, but the first objective does not win you any war, it provides attackers/bombers or the boots on the ground to fulfil the real tactical objectives.

I know about the different styles of air tactics. I spoke about the clusterfuck that the dogfighting on the deck usually is because that is the least tactical part. People energy fighting still do something remotely focussed on winning a battle vs. diving to the first enemy spotted.

Map size I think is kind of adequate, with larger maps going back to base and go for another run takes a lot of time. While reality in WOII was a constant going back to base, fixing up the plane as fast as possible and up in the air again, certainly when a side was on the brink of loosing like the Brits in the Battle of Britain.

1 Like

While I am greatly convinced about the benefit of AF AA to the gameplay, I agree the middle map AA is highly detrimental for gameplay. It just serves Gaijins “the faster people play the less they earn and the less server space is needed” design philosophy.

Now removing AA on the AF would hurt the game emergence. When I started playing RB what I like most was the taking off and landing, making it feel much more like a real sortie with a mission compared to AB. Removing the AA would make landing and taking off much more dangerous, usually a better solution would be to space climb (which is annoying and kills emergence).

Much much better would be to increase the timer to 45, 60 or 90 minutes. That removes the need to win a battle by killing all opponents because their is always enough time to fulfill all the objectives. Without the need to kill an AF camper people would get much less benefit by AF camping which should remove a considerable amount of camping.

1 Like

Good luck space climbing in a fighter, makes 0 sense. So generally your point is - you like to land and just want to run the clock, so everyone gets bored to death and that somehow improves the gameplay? You can’t make this up.

You completely ignore how AAA ruins dogfights, ruins PVP in general and creates toxic and malicious tactics of baiti g people into the deathzone.

Ground pounding is no alternative. It’s boring, it’s giving up position, and oftentimes it’s pointless. Sp we’re back to complete redesign of the gamemode while removal of AF AAA solves a lot of gameplay problems with minimal effort.

There is no map where killing all enemy players is the only way to win. From the beginnings of warthunder it was always designed as battle and not a duel.

How you not see doubling the time destroys AF camping is baffling to me. If there is one guy camping his AF the other team now has ample time to win by objectives. You don’t give up position, because you dive to ground and if needed RTB to your own AF for a reload. If the enemy then leaves his AF you should be happy, if he stays he looses on tickets.


Tbh i had my problems with reducing the game time from 60 to 25 minutes as i had really some epic matches years ago over 1 hour with scores above 9300 points and really great matches.

But seeing that the quality of Air RB decreased so fast in the last 6 - 24 months and considering that most prop matches are decided in 8 to 15 minutes and the match result became more and more a random event, i think 25 minutes are ok.

At least for me real turnarounds (like winning in a ticket disadvantage playing 1 vs 4) by killing all remaining opponents became extremely rare.

Imho there is no need to kill an af camper outside you play 1 vs 1 (as last players alive) in a ticket disadvantage.

And then you can still decide if you take the risk to go in to get that lucky shot or to go low and try to kill tickets and get jumped - or you accept the loss, as somehow his team has simply played better to gain this advantage.

As long as you not try to push win rates and see the outcome as a more and more random result there is no need to get angry. Just imagine u accept the loss and in the next match you win without firing a single shot as you land on Tunisia and u have 7 Wyverns in your team, killing all tickets in under 4 minutes…

1 Like

I’m part of Anti-AF AAA as well but, I’m against them from a game design perspective not “historical” stuff.

I mean there are some aircrafts that can be untouchable even you brought same BR aircrafts if someone played correctly such as rocket aircrafts and F-104A/C so, Jet RB needs nerfing AF SPAA/SAMs or removing them from early Jets to early supersonic jets tier as counterpart of untouchable things.

Tunesia (as an example) would become more fun if AI targets are spread more across the map. Some ground units could be more back, maybe even within some kilometers if the AF. That way both sides, the air supremacy guys wanting to kill every player can add something to the game while ground units should remain very important for the mission as well. And having targets spread out more also gives the benefit of fights occuring further away from each other, so if I dive on a wyvern both he stand a chance and I stand a chance of not getting third parties.


Roland missiles are pretty easy to evade since the missile guidance overhaul. They need to buff them as now they do not provide sufficient protection for planes on the ground.


I have no problems with povs pro or con af aaa - but i think your example contradicts the whole purpose of the availability of highly specialized planes.

Their purpose was to be op and untouchable and your expectation looks like you want to nerf a game mechanic just in order to exploit their weaknesses.

So imho your game design requirements are already met by gaiijin - the BR setting policy tries to flatten certain advantages of planes with BRs far away from reality and create more or less a pure fictional / fantasy game design with more than questionable BRs. We have certain planes able to be untouchable even in full uptiers and without af aaa.

So i do respect your pov but imho the main strength or wt thunder lies in the vehicle variety, and plane class variety - following your logic to remove af aaa to catch op rocket planes helpless when refuelling, makes them useless. Nobody would really fly this stuff anymore.

In case all u have to do for a kill is to wait until your enemy runs out of fuel, the whole purpose of PvP interaction (who is better?) would be pointless. Even if some claim this would be realistic - it simply de-validates any “real” air to air kill if kills can be achieved that easy.


Except he doesn’t because it’s very easy to create ticket advantage no reasonable amount of brainless clicking in a fighter will fix.
Also yeah extremely good solution - wasting my time clicking on ground targets for 15-17m. Extremely fun and engaging.

So overal:

  • random actions of attackers you can’t really prevent may nullify even creating a 5:1 advantage because German fighters are horrible at ground pounding
  • even if you can ground pound your way to victory, it’s extremely boring and tedious
  • AF camping requires no skills at all, in a PvP game an automated zone that kills.enemies and keepa you safe is a ridiculous idea.

I mean, seriously, how anyone with any amount of skill can’t see this doesn’t help good players, it only helps people who are extremely malicious. So do we want to really promote players that are bad in every way?

Once again - running the clock is not a feature any serious game should have. PvE aspect of Air RB is absolutely atrocious and forcing anyone into playing this probably means you guys simply DO NOT ENJOY AIR RB.
Yeah, exactly this. You basically take the only true PVP air mode in game and work hard to cripple the PVP aspect, the only thing that makes it playable.

Any sane pilot would prefer an airfield being defended by AA, you do not want enemies getting near when you need to slow down and land… It starts to feel you are whining about something every military pilot in the world takes for granted.

Landing and taking of are normal, nothing strange. There is no need for the enemy to be near the AF. Sure there are AF campers -which is boring- but AF camping only helps someone win a game when the team already did a better job then the enemy.

I never fly Germany, but I do have a Bf109 and with the cannons I would not know why you would be bad for the ground mission. At least German planes on the deck have their turn and climbrate giving them much better options the US planes.

The game has never been as PvP oriented as it is now, yet you are still very disappointed. While the real disappointed players should be the bombers and fighter bombers which performed the majority of sorties in WOII and in the end made Overlord and the whole destruction of the German war machine possible. In the past they had a much closer representation of their mission and role in battles then nowadays. Sure there have been real world crazy fighters who lived to fight another day, but most people do not go out in the sky just for a fun dogfight.


While the F-104A/F-104C example is due to BR compression but, for rocket aircraft (Me 163B-0/B-1/Ki-200), if it becomes useless, at some point the BR should go down. As a matter of fact, before the implementation of AF SAMs, Me 163B-0 and Ki-200 had lower BR(8.3/8.0 iirc).

However, when the AF SAMs were implemented, these aircraft were given “proper protection” when on the airfield, making them one of the easiest planes to play in Jet RB match, as long as fuel management was taken care of. Therefore, Me 163B-0 and Ki-200 were moved to 8.7BR (same as the MiG-15bis/F-86F-25 lmao) to face aircraft like Harriers, F-104A/F-104C, MiG-19, which should never face against rocket aircrafts.

The Me 163B-1 still remains at 8.0 BR, probably because the average player doesn’t know how to aim with the MK 108. If AF SAMs are further nerfed and rocket aircraft BRs are changed, the playstyle required to play them will just be back to what it used to be pre AF SAMs/SPAAs.

I have been playing Me 163B-0 and Ki-200 since before AF SAM was implemented and the play style of it was not that bad, there were frequent dogfights between jets due to non existent or only early AAMs, and many times you could carry your teammates in rocket aircraft even you gets full uptier games a lot and face against MiG-17, CL-13A Mk.5, F-2 Sabre.


If you were in a supersonic jet you would not have died like they did unless you overused the afterburners.

Your logic is flawed.
I’m on the receiving end of AF AAA 99% of the time. I almost never use AF AAA myself. I keep fighting till the end.
And somehow I’m doing way, way, way better than any of AF AAA apologists in this topic. Why?
Because I play Air RB to have fun and I keep improving.
While AF AAA apologists basically want to avoid the PVP aspect that defines the mode as much as possible. Some are compulsive grindfest participators. And they do their best to kill all the things Air RB enjoyers love.

No pilot who hits the enemy a lot more often than the other way around is benefitting from AF AAA because his enemies will keep using AF AAA to deny him the advantage he worked for.
Any WW2 pilot would probably shoot himself rather than see his enemies dive into death-ray zone and be invulnerable every 2-3 encounters.
Real life pilots often flew a for a few hundred kilometers before actually getting into combat zome, planes like Fw 190 had range around 800km for a reason, don’t know if that’s counting drop tanks, but it’s clearly visible 200+km to the battlefield was probably pretty normal. With 200km to the AF in WW2 plane, you’re not getting away after being shot in the engine. In WT? Easy-peasy, because AF death zone is 10km away if you’re paying attention to your positioning, as most AF runners do.

AF AAA benefits bad and malicious players. Bad players who do not climb, who can’t go for reversals, who do not work for position, and malicious players who use AF AAA as one of the most important parts of their tactics.
Both groups do NOT deserve protection.

Bombers are not good for gaming and that’s why DCS is full of fighters. Why? Because flying a slow, hulking beast is not really enjoyable and in fighter-heavy environment, bombers IRL were toast.

Reality is, heavy bombers were never really making this game better in any way and I would rather see them as AI. However, Gaijin gave players a chance to fly them. AF AAA doesn’t help them anyway. It’s just an ability to choose a non-meta nad mostly useless planes - you should be thankful. Yet you keep somehow being disappointed that these bombers are not useful.
They are not meta, they are not useful, and almost every game has weapons and vehicles that are just bad/not meta/extremely situational but you can play them anyway if you like such gameplay, but any problems that arise are on you!

Bombers get next to nothing from AF AAA. 97% of AF campers are fighters and super-fast bombers with good armanent like B18B. I can usually slap a heavy bomber in a suicidial raid if needed.