Honestly I feel the korean jet/early vietnam air field defence seems about… OK.
It shoots rolands at you, which won’t catch you if you make a quick entry and egress to boom some camper circling above the airfield. However, it gets too numerous to dodge if you linger and eats all your energy.
It feels far more fair to me compared to the magic flak (that can delete you from the air even while maneuvering and flying rapidly WITHOUT friendly fire - if it had friendly fire like a flak box it’d make sense at least).
So tuning AAA to like the effectiveness of Rolands around the era of sabres and demons might achieve that without any special mechanics?
Yeah. As long as WT punished you for dying and/or trying to continue (rearm/refuel/repair), then you should always have protection on the AF. You shouldn’t be a free kill because you are trying to continue to fight, because that punishes that player for playing the game.
I agree. To me AF AA is only an issue at prop BRs, and it should be changed to be actual AA and not hitscan damage that you can’t outsmart.
I agree, I don’t think you should be entirely safe on the ground or infuse your AA envelope. Bombing and strafing aircraft are very real world tactics.
But that said it should be a dangerous thing to attempt.
Such people make the game easier for you and me. If we do our part, they can’t do anything, as they are outnumbered heavily anyway.
The problem with AF AAA is that it’s useful not only for camping, but also as a safe retreat.
I’ve had a match where dude in G.55S flew towards AF each time I tried to engage him.
If you know G.55 you do realise that if you’re below it in German plane and you are not a lot faster with some serious alt to spare, you’re in deep trouble as that thing barely compresses and has an excellent turn rate and is super pleasant to fly.
Unless you’re very good (I’m not) you have to make sure G.55 dies before you go fight at low altitude.
The thing is, you can approach the guy over and over and he’ll just head back to AF. Again if you aren’t a lot faster with some long-reaching gun, GL with that.
And how can we prevent such scenario?
What game mechanic will stop a guy in a perfectly fine plane to basically stall the game for you? Same tactic can be utilised by basically any plane in game, but when it’s a plane that’s very hard to counter once he has energy advantage…
Anyway, I see no good solutions to this that involve leaving AF AAA.
Unless it literally only targets planes once they kill somebody on/just above the AF/only works when a plane is landed/up to 30s after takeoff.
There is a very simple counterplay, and that is that you push tab and check your mission objectives. Go get to fight the war you are supposed to fight.
It is called warthunder for a reason, this is a war being fought and not an air combat simulator.
It is also called realistic, so I don’t know why you would think you could find and enemy airfield without AA. Sure, we could make it a proper and much more rewarding mission to destroy the airfield AA and radar… but the existence and ways to deal or avoid is part of every pilots training. Unless you think we could find players interesting in manning the AA guns themselves we need AA to make the mode realistic.
It is not exactly realistic that magic hitscan “”“flak”“” can hit a low-flying fighter at 500+ km/h while maneuvering regardless of what you do on a timer WITHOUT also saturating the airspace and also hitting the guy that’s airfield camping (ergo: flakbox).
Rolands are well-made for korean jets.
WW2 magic flak is not. It should either be a physical projectile you can see, dodge and evade like the gepards at ground battles in EC6/EC7 sim brackets, or it should flat out saturate the air space and deal friendly fire to the airfield camper.
Mouse aim is nowhere less realistic in terms of physics of the flight model.
All it is is a super-advanced flight-by-wire system that has perfect data input/knowledge of both the plane’s current state, environment and the pilot’s intentions.
Theoretically, a very skilled HOTAS user can achieve all the same outcomes under all the same circumstances as mouse aim. Reality of course differs - there’s a reason we put FBW in every fighter jet after apollo after all.
(plus it seems to really struggle with how to use the rudder properly and making efficient turns, so there’s situations full-real has advantages already)
I love it to be less good, both if you fly over the frontline and the airfield, the AA lethality on some maps is rediculous. The discussion is more on the merrit and realism of having AA on an airfield at all.
Where has this notion come from? I’ve never seen anyone do this. It’s silly to do this. Whenever anyone complains about this, what they really mean is that someone chased them back to their airfield, at which point that person was forced to break off and hang around in the general area in the hopes that they’ll eventually leave the airfield zone.
If you find yourself in a position where you’re damaged or out of ammo with your base’s safety compromised, you’ve got the previous actions of your team and yourself throughout that game to blame for it. Some games are unwinnable, I get that, but the vast majority of times I see people talk about this it’s them complaining because they’ve made their bed and don’t want to get in it.
I disagree with being unable to die on the airfield, but I do agree with it only protecting you when you’re landed. The inactive players mechanic was a step in the right direction, hopefully they’ll follow through and stop people from being able to play NASCAR around their airfield with no consequences.
I’m talking Realistic (with mouse aim) vs Full Real Controls.
Here’s what the instructor does.
1.Player points mouse in X direction
2. Instructor receives this instruction and considers the plane’s current IAS, control surfaces (including damage), structural integrity (ergo: “Does my left wing have less lift because it’s full of holes?”)
3. Based on this consideration, it trims out the damage it sustained dynamically and inputs rudder, aileron and elevator deflections to achieve the requested heading in a safe and stable manner.
4. While executing the aforementioned maneuver, it keeps checking what the plane’s situation and the desired course is and makes adjustments.
It can be overriden by manual roll/yaw/pitch which inputs as…
It emphasizes safety. It will pull less angles of attack to avoid stalls than you can pull off with proper technique
It does not use the rudder properly for sudden, sharp turns. Its rudder control is amazing for getting nose on target, less so for “turn right”, causing a lot of speed to be bled from slipping
Nowhere does the instructor interfere with the physics of the plane. Nowhere does it affect the flight model or the plane’s theoretical maximum or minimum performance.
It simply compensates for damage much better than most human pilots can and is capable of incredibly minute adjustments for easy and stable long-distance aim even near stall speeds (thus - prop hanging). This isn’t physics breaking though, just an autopilot that in real life millitaries are doing their damnedest to reproduce (in terms of the damage-compensation at least).