what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense in realistic mode, you’re trying to transform an arcade into a mode that goes totally in the opposite direction, because in realistic the whole map is a combat zone, the airports are protected (as it should be) and if you get close you get shot down (as it should be) the only thing I agree with you is that people must have a limited time to refuel, then take off and be able to go back to fighting, then it’s up to the player’s skills, because you can’t deny people refueling since the maps are often very large and the fuel is not enough because many planes do not have additional tanks, and also replenish the ammunition. moreover, standing on the base waiting for the moment when a person takes off and can do nothing but receive an execution is just as deplorable, as is camping in the base. there has to be a balance, and if your team is dead and you are the only survivor you come back to fight and if you are good and have skill you can even turn the tables, because this means fighting in a PVP game, as long as there is even only one player the game is not won and anything is possible. if you can’t understand this game changer because it means it doesn’t play pvp for you.
and it is equally legitimate for a person to want to go back to base, repair press ESC leave battle and give you victory, without trying to change, to preserve repair costs.
Let me.rephrase that for you - you are getting clobbered, you want to use AF AAA death rays for your advantage, you feel fine with people trolling entire teams and deliberately extending games to 25m and you want good players to get annoyed and quit.
You know who can gwt the most out of AF AAA? Players like me. But I refuse to do so. But you know what? I may very well start and elevate my WR through the roof.
It’s absolutely fine to end up in an unwinnable situation in a PVP game. It’s a team game and it’s absolutely fine that sometimes you simply can’t win. If you have to land and die - that’s skill issue on your side. Get good. It’s that easy. 1 player can “try” to win, but remember - enemy team put time and effort to eliminate his team. Why would you give that 1 player additional advantage of being able to reset and reclimb at will?
There’s nothing wrong with people landing and ending up dead, they and their team are to blame for that. Why can’t I be protected from Mk IX LF Spitfire on my tail? What can I do against him in Re.2005 other than head-on? Spitfire does everything better. Maybe I should get magical death rays to help me too?
But no, I don’t get those even if I can end up in an unwinnable situation just because of my plane’s performance.
Yet magically people who camp AF or who decide to land like there’s no enemy team around should receive protection, because what? They stuck close to their AF? Hilarious.
I want a skill based game. You want lack of skill and common sense rewarded.
My solution to the problem I posted above is a great compromise - you can land and quit. But you can’t escape bad situations via AF AAA because the guy attacking you deserves that kill more than you “deserve” magical protection.
And since it’s a game, it needs to give people incentive to stay around. Many prop maps have borders far beyond the map arra (the map zooms out 2-3 times before you reach the real end) - allowing to fly 100+km away from combat. If someone doesn’t want to fight - make him lose, like in every other game.
Want to have “realistic protected AF” - fine, just place it 80km from map middle. Happy flying.
If what you really want is realism, then the map should probably be a lot bigger with airfield a lot further away, isn’t it ? Or a least i think so. A Spitfire had a service range of 1100 km… But i don’t feel like flying for 20 minutes before engaging in the fight.
I think the solution is to not have airfield at all. Make one edge of the map an “escape zone” where you can leave (because i honestly don’t know how realistic landing to repair and rearm is in the context of a single battle) and avoid repair cost.
If you are too damaged to make it, then you would probably have never made it back anyway…
Going for realism is a really interesting idea, but i wonder how it would work in the game economy.
Just food for thought. cheers.
I had a reflexion about AAA and the economy and how they relate.
I don’t have a prem account. But when i am flying one of my few premium aircraft, i don’t mind losing it in battle because i know i will be fine overall money wise.
But when i fly a plane that will cost me 10k in repair or more than a week in free repair time, then i understandably become less inclined, and would sometimes go back to base and leave when i see i stand no chances (happen often when grinding stock planes). In this situation, i am more than happy to have AAA to allow to leave the game without a huge penalty money wise.
So in the current situation, i feel like it would be worse overall not to have AAA. I think with this economy, if there were no AAA, i would on average lose money and i would probably stop playing the game. So there is of course the question of player retention in the balace of everything. Hard to keep people playing when it is so punishing. Right ?
Now, being allowed to land and not straffed by a base camper is a good thing imo. But i wonder from the ground of historical realism if the concept of being able to take off again within a minutes actually makes any sens. Wouldn’t it be more realistic that if you manage to land, you get repaired and then it is over for you nonetheless ?? Not being able to take off again would make more sens. And would probably solve quite a few af camping scenario happening. Especially the one when you take off for the second time, but half the ennemy team is waiting for you above the airfield, which understandably leads to base camping.
Cheers everyone.
The best way not to lose is just play the game. You need v. low skill level to average 1 kill per battle, because large part of enemy team are always bombers/attackers. You just need some brain. In many battles there’s time to ground pound. And you will not die every battle.
So to not go negative, you have to just play the game properly as in: not trying to turnfight Spitfires in Fw 190.
Generally I have nothing against AF allowing for rearmanent or repair mid-game. Problems come from people staying relatively close to AF and using it to cancel the enemy’s advantage or to prolong the game.
I have nothing against mid-air reloads - as long, as it takes some time to get those.
However, my idea of AF AAA operation and “combat zone” control is also worth looking at. Right now the game is often rigged towards 1 team with ground forces placement/type/ticket bleed rates, so it’s easy to get an advantage the enemy cannot counter and then all it takes is to run the clock. This is just bad game design, that promotes long periods of absolute boredom and there’s simply no hope of ever catching B18B that has been climbing since the start of the game and he has 0 incentive to ever re-enter the combat area. That’s just horrible design.
And here’s exactly what I’m talking about.
It’s one of MANY battles in the last few days that ended with my loss purely because of AF AAA.
AF camper is damaged, AF camper repairs, AF camper either regains position thx to being allowed to camp the AF or he just camps till the tickets run out.
And there’s literally no way for my to negate the ticket advantage which grows exponentialy during the game due to auto-bleed.
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/94709088348346270
Guy has 77% WR with barely any kills.
Make your guess how does he achieve that WR. And it’s not via being good at the game.
And IRL airbase defense was significantly stronger than WT’s.
Nope, IRL strafing airfields was very popular and effective tactic.
Also it doesn’t matter, because we want good gameplay. If you want realism, then introduce permadeath and make it so you encounter the enemy once per 5 battles, also cockpit view onky and 6 hour long missions.
No?
It’s a game and it should follow a good game design.
Permadeath is implemented. You cannot respawn in RB matches or normal simulator matches.
And sim EC is based on your funding.
LOL you either deliberately missed the point about perma death or you are just that smart. Either way, you have wasted enough of my time.
War Thunder is a game of wargames.
Each match is its own game, and if you die, your crew is dead.
Well dead in the context of wargames.
IRL wargames no one tends to “die” but they do die in terms of the war game.
All you’ve been quoting about in regards to IRL airfield strafing is small conflicts between small nations that don’t have the most up-to-date weapons and technology. Because of this, this particular part of your argument is quite frankly worthless.
I ask everyone this: Has airfield strafing been done in a war game exercise IRL?
IIRC, the A-4 Skyhawk did airfield strafing with Zuni rockets against MiG-17 that was taking off.
That happend in Vietnam War, and pretty much the same thing would have happened in Korea.
You think North Vietnam and America was “small nations”?
North Vietnam was, yes.
BTW, I’m surprised “airfield camper” was exist even in reallife.
Based upon a recent SB match, and Im going to make an assumption that the effectiveness of AA in ARB and SB are similar, then they really need a buff.
Although they didn’t have nuclear weapons, China and Russia provided military support for Noth Vietnam, and although they were not as strong as the America, they had enough power to counter them just like North Korea in 1950s.
And except for the Zhenbao/Damansky Island incident, there have been few WW2-like conflicts between the major powers because “wars” between them post 1950s basically means nuclear wars, so the example shouldn’t be ignored just because the dispute is between “small” countries that don’t have the technology.
WW2 happened between small, backwards nations. I will take note.
I guess WW2 is a small conflict and the United States of America and the Empire of Japan are small nations.
