60km. Yeah sure. 13m of flight between 2 AFs. Where are you getting this data? I’ll tell you. You’re making this stuff up to support your ridiculous argument.
WT has unrealistic setting, unrealistic weapons, unrealistic pilots and space-laser AF AAA shooting down WW2 aircraft. It makes 0 sense.
Ever read smth about climbing rates?
Gamer generation… Why try to argue with common sense…
With 13m in-between airfield you don’t need to fly high. Just take off, bomb them and you are back to base before the soup gets cold.
Seriously, you are beyond delusional.
If you set up AF 30km from frontline you’d get strafed to death as soon as enemy would discover your positoons, since 30km behind frontlines means you’ll get like 4m of warning from frontline observers, not really enough time to scramble.
“This game orient itself on realism.”
Yes I’m sure WW2 AA in real life had hitscan type AA that could track through the ground/trees and targets going the speed of light.
Agreed, but somehow just af aaa is the bad guy here… :-)
Imho this is actually correct - but only for USSR vs Germany up to mid/end of 1943.
And mainly based on the fact that USSR fighters rarely crossed the front line. Their purpose was mainly to cover own strike aircraft / bombers going for tactical targets at the front line. So Germans were usually safe if they made it back behind friendly lines.
Regardind ETO / MTO fights US/UK vs Germany the distances were far larger.
From a theoretical pov you are right. But from a historical pov the issue has to be seen in the right context. A small example of airfield raids by the USSR:
In the early morning of 5 July, the VVS launched a large raid against German airfields, hoping to destroy the Luftwaffe on the ground. This effort failed, and the VVS units suffered considerable losses.[t][190][183] The VVS lost 176 aircraft on 5 July, compared to the 26 aircraft lost by the Luftwaffe.
If you read analysis of aircraft losses above North Africa your theory is true, despite the distances were far larger; the majority of axis plane losses were a result of bombing them on their airfields. The vast distances and the lack of early warning systems were a main factor. Similar to the situation above Italy & the Balkan after 1943/44.
But i fully agree - arguing with irl topics whilst playing wt is useless.
Have a good one!
AF AAA is a party pooper, ruining matches and allowing toxic players to extebd the match to full 25m, everything else just a part of a fairly enjoyable gaming experience. Hence it’s the bad guy. I’m not looking for some mind-blowing historical experience in a mode where 1946 turboprop clowns on 1941 fighters.
Every time I check back here it is a new set of players making the same dead argument about poor attackers and bombers needing AAA, “fighter jocks” and “PvP only mode”…
There’s still plenty of fun games to be had thx to AF AAA:
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/148121336003504211
For those who can’t watch:
The fact there’s already a XP-50 at airfield 5 minutes into the game is unfortunate. Guy has no clue how to conserve his ammo/plane to stay up longer in the match.
AF camping in a Yak-3 against one person in a 190 F-8 is pathetic. Stuff like this is the exact reason why AF AA needs to be changed because this type of gameplay is cringe and annoying. It’s always the mediocre players defending this type of gameplay too because they need a handicap. If AF AA was somewhat realistic or at least had a timer before cooling down, Air RB would be a lot less annoying. Thankfully at higher tiers AF AA is basically worthless.
I seriously don’t get why people have an issue with AF strafing. When I get AF strafed I don’t complain for stronger AF AA. I recognize it was my fault I got into that position while someone else managed their plane better. Of course, if someone is flying around map borders and then showing up to AF 10 mins later, that’s pretty stupid but so far I’ve never actually seen any person do that (especially in props).
I would be pretty happy if that Yak-3 just simply quit. He could have scored a kill vs T18B before I’d be able to kill him most likely. He had an idea how to dodge, Yak-3 is mind-numbingly good at reversals and (till the next patch) it can take a huge beating thx to M-geschoss 0.4 mm fuse and MG131 0.3mm fuse not working vs Yak-3 aircraft skin (a bug that’s few years old BTW).
But no, better to fly circles around AF and lose on tickets (ground pounding is so engaging :)).
(till the next patch)
What is this supposed to refer to?
Also yeah, I’d rather have people who want to AF camp just quit and J out. Instead they camp AF wasting time for the inevitable to happen.
For context, this guy spent 5-6 minutes AF camping just to die like this. He would’ve been better off just landing and J’ing out.
Next patch fixes M-geschoss fuse sensitivity. I’m not sure about Breda and MG131, though
Imho you miss a few things in your retrospective.
Well, if I win a dogfight in F8, sure as hell it’s not because of turn rate, lol.
Generally, I see a common theme among AF camping players. It’s not them camping. They are “being camped”. As you are probably aware, properly climbing Wyvern at 4.0 is basically untouchable early game and a huge danger to the enemy team.
Yet I’ve met a Wyvern guy camping his AF (maybe even posted a replay here) for several minutes straight and accusing us of “camping him”. Because he was getting chased down after dropping his bombs, so he hid in the safety of his AF.
It was, by his logic, not his fault he was camping, it was me (and my teammates) who were being unfair.
How were we unfair? We got into position that allowed us to kill him. He claimed he was “being camped” from almost the beginning, because at first he was being chased by Yak-3.
What was his “solution”? Just let me bomb.
So to such players a fair situation is a situation where they are untouchable or at least have an advantage (head on vs Wyvern is suicide and generally Wyvern can just clown on Fw 190 in a descending spiral thx to airbrakes and excellent high speed control + high velocity guns, extremely hard to escape such predicament against a player who can kinda aim, kinda because you have 300 RPG so you can keep blasting for like 25s straight).
A situation where they make bad choice and end up in a theoretically deadly situation, because they chose to bomb at low alt, early game, instead of climbing, is unfair to them by default and it means they DESERVE to be protected .
I don’t think people “deserve” to be protected or they “deserve” a way out of every bad situation. This is like a racing game. If you try to race Porsche 911, you don’t deserve to win while driving a 1l, 3-cylinder eco-something something 2t SUV designed to look kinda offroadish, appeal to 30-40yo women and handle like absolute hot garbage. Some difficulties can’t be overcome unless the other driver is blind, drunk, a toddler or all 3 at once. And same applies to WT, yet here people somehow expect to not only have a “fighting chance”, they expect to be able to engage with ability to avoid the damage and choose their encounters.
Agreed, as with most of reply.
It simply depends on expectations and individual goals whilst playing a game, expecting “fairness” and “balance” from a game designed to create the opposite in order to earn money with selling stuff like Wyverns, etc is far away from being realistic.
It makes no sense to discuss things if expectations and individual goals are not compatible. So if a guy like in your example wants to bomb / play PvE he had another view on things than you. Rejecting his view is comprehensible, but imho every attempt to change the pov of random strangers in a video game is futile.
We have some common opinions and some deviating povs - but this does not mean that we can’t talk civilized like proven here.
Unfortunately this forum (like society in general) became a “yes” or “no” battle ground regarding opinions - you rarely see a neutral and sober view on things (so a “balanced” view) and almost every debate escalates very quickly into a ugly insult orgy.
If you want to see a perfect example of an such an insult orgy (dealing with basically the same topic) just check out this thread:
Basically a waste of time for all participants as almost nobody was interested in a proper discussion…i mean we talk about a war game and not about a game where unicorns trying have good day, but come to your own conclusions…
I mean the thread was about specifically about AF camping which is degenerate from every perspective.
I have disagreements with many of the people who took my side on that thread, because I think that bomber players do have a right to be part of the game mode. I just want the gamemode to be better suited for bomber play, and it just isn’t rn.
Right now, bomber players fly in, drop their payload, and then they can either start climbing to space (waste everyone’s time), return to airfield and just camp it (waste everyone’s time) or try to land and go for a second bombing run which means them at an overwhelming disadvantage.
The incentive structure that Gaijin has set up is terrible. Bomber players only really have the choice to either waste everyone’s time or put themselves in disadvantageous positions.
This creates an unfortunate situation where the only people who actually consistently play bombers are the ones who are okay with wasting everyone’s time. This creates a reaction from non-bombers that make them well… hate them.
Non-bombers begin to hate Bombers for the time wasting, bombers begin to hate non-bombers for calling them out on the strat + getting fed up with them and hunting them down (as I’ve been doing).
As a result, the community begins to divide and hate each other, when in reality the problem is Gaijin’s unwillingness to implement a healthier gamemode.
If we get rid of AF camping, then bomber players will have honest cause to demand better conditions, and the community can present a united front to Gaijin. But if AF camping continues, then Gaijin just pits us against one another.
Not sure why this is supposed to matter. The videos perfectly illustrate the various points I made. If posting clips with meta planes is an issue or something, here’s another example of someone wasting time by playing AF NASCAR.
The original point of the replay was in regards to AF which is why I focused on it in the “translation” .
a good flown Yak-3 leaves you very few options outside high speed passes.
True but that’s not the case here since the Yak-3 pilot lost position and decided to AF camp against 1 person. IMO, the current strength of AF AA incentivizes this kind of behavior and does make it really annoying for other players.
To be honest, you can’t even really balance bombers currently. They could be super OP (ending games in a matter of minutes) or currently useless. This reminds me of when the Me 264 was first released and I squaded with 2 other guys. We were consistently ending games unopposed from enemy players because no one could touch us. Tu-4s were also OP years ago with basically aimbot gunners and an insane payload. The whole gamemode would have to change (not just fixing AF AA) to make attackers/bombers actually viable.
;)
Let me say this, so dev possibly hear this so there is positive feedback
I love the fact that forward AF lost AA
Keep it this way, Good Job, since that change i can’t recall seeing AF camper
Really Good Job, applause for gajin, good job devs, no forward af aa, best change alongside fixed economy.
It’s the only reason why I tolerate props.
killing someone who dived for base is a chef’s kiss.