A skillful player avoids bush placement by shooting from the sides or rear.
I look forward to the reversion from all the face banging lemming trains.
There is much more luck than “skill” (press fire button?) in GF and believing most “opponents” give some sort of challenge is questionable at best since this is an open game.
Edit: sorry @Aegis270, clicked wrong reply button as is a general reply, not one focused on you.
I don’t mind the reply, it is a counterargument.
So to be clear, your answer to bushes is to never engage enemy tanks frontally? Under no circumstances?
What if you’re in a tank unsuited for flanking? What if you run into an enemy tank on the same flanking route you’re on? What if an enemy reacts to your flank and pushes you? What if you get outflanked? What if you need to push a cap point to win the game?
Feels a little reductive to just say “Don’t engage them frontally” when there are so many ways for that to happen that aren’t up to you.
Bushes are free in-game if you decide to do the objectives and tasks.
You do not need to be a wallet warrior to earn bushes.
No, I’m saying many of the times the front is not the only part you will face.
No tanks are unsuitable for using flanks since many maps are quite small, just easy to flank as most players yolo one part of the map; hence the luck part. I’ve even flanked in the Tortoise.
Which moves to your next queries which I answer with: I hope the enemy do; it shows players are back to playing the game and not just headbutting W. But yes, many circumstances can exist but there are usually multiple ways to navigate them, and the fact there is “team” and a reasonable range of options (push together, arti to scare, airplanes to attack, smoke to try and distract, etc.).
Yes I agree, but it is also worsening the game where most matches I’ve seen involve a lack of thought meaning most engagements for them is frontal where it need not.
Very very rarely will you meet a true bush monster (not including some of the tiny vehicles) as very few in comparison have that option of 6 packs. Bushes are linked to camos and so in one map it might help them, in another they make themselves obvious. Heck, if they really annoy you the game lets you revenge bomb them, where those bushes will not help at all.
Anaecdotal but on my first run in the SU-57 (on release so higher BR) there was a squad of 3 bushed KV-1Bs murdering my team (all frontal smacking). So I trundled to the side by 20 metres, shot two in the sides then followed the “leader” and turret ringed him (not very quick at communicating).
The issue is they exist, to “remove” (options to see) then causes issues to compensate those who grinded them (Had all but 1 before the new lot came in recently).
They are an advantage, but not always that much of one, can be a hinderance (making vehicle obvious or blocked views), and we all can have exactly the same if you put the time in (same with crew skills etc etc). 6 packs were a mistake and if they hadn’t added such features we wouldn’t miss them, but they exist so we make the best of it.
I always liked the idea gunfire/bombs/fire would remove them in battles, but I’m sure there are technical/sync issues.
Ahh ok, and this “bush camouflage” was undestructible taht even flamethrower couldn’t burn it? And it was only accessible to crews that paid real money for this? The answers are 2xNO, so your argument is invalid. If i can’t destroy it so it should be option in graphic settings to turn it off.
Hilarious how people always say it’s just cosmetic but then you suggest a toggle for it and suddenly it’s so much more apparently.
It’s a pay to win advantage, nothing more, nothing less.
Ho and just because it is not realist that bushes cant be destroyed, you suggest more realism by a graphic option who hide them? yeaaaaaaaaaah it is totaly realist …
And … Just read that:
Q. Is it possible to make 3D decorations physical so that they can detach from vehicles when hit?
- Great idea! We’ll look into how complicated this would be to implement, and if it is indeed possible we’ll aim to make them destructible and prone to catching fire as well.
You can have all bushes for free with warbonds. Just play and up your battle pass for up your warbond shop (free parts of BP) and buy crates with bushes.
Your remark about a PAYING benefit is erroneous.
And my arguments just are on the volume of bushes can be used on a tank for hide it. Not on the irealistic of permanent status of bushes.
And IRL, tank crews camouflage their tanks much better: IG we are limited with 6 bushes. with the exception of very small tanks, you cant camoufling all your tank and you can hide only front of the tank.
It is not only available to paying customers.
Bushes can be obtained for free, so calling them a p2w advantage is simply wrong.
Bushes are not currently available in the warbond shop, as much as people like to shout that as fact despite having no idea about this, how is that not pay to win?
Even when they were in the warbond shop, it requires players to grind to something stupid like level 50+ in the warbond shop, whilst also completing a bunch of special medals, a very demanding task for players just to have a chance at getting a bush, and with almost 40 bushes available, half of them probably being small or whatever there’s a good chance you’ll get a bad bush or even just SL as a big FU.
And with BPs lasting over 3 months, it’s going to take you one a half years at best to get 6 bushes, one and a half years of continuously logging in, playing, completing dailies, completing challenges and special medals, likely 6 completely mismatched and hideous bushes because I love seeing tanks be completely ruined with these things, as well as neon signs, sparklers, fireworks, anime pillows and flashing lights in my supposedly realistic game.
Insane if you think this is even remotely reasonable, a new player is going to require several years to obtain these bushes, forgoing the other rewards in the process as well, during which they’ll be at a disadvantage.
Of course this is in the case that those bushes are actually in the warbond shop, which they are not, something you might want to check before throwing that out there.
If you believe bushes don’t give an advantage, you shouldn’t be opposed to a toggle, if you do believe they give an advantage, they need to be accessible or it’s pay to win, which it currently is.
Free bushes “pay to win”.
I don’t think you understand what paying & free are.
That actually depends on which ones you get. Some can be done fast, others rely on luck (win x amount of matches while achieving y). And you can only switch a limited amount for free (SL) each day.
I agree with most of what you said here, as well as with the notion that fun should trump realism every time. But I come to a very different conclusion than you.
Recently, my most played vehicle in game has been the Jagdtiger. Many reasons why I love it, which I won’t get into now, but one of the things I find very rewarding about it, and really 6.7 in general, is that shot placement is incredibly important. A big tank destroyer with a giant “f you” gun would basically be able to click and pen almost anywhere at lower BRs. Not so here: either you meet light vehicles that require you to aim your APHE for crew location (less they simply overpen and pass through without damage), or you meet enemy mediums (let alone heavies) with lots of sloped armour that you can’t just expect to lolpen. You need to memorise weakspots religiously or you’re screwed.
This is even truer because in the current “meta” (god I hate that word), heavies are at a severe disadvantage. This is a balance problem that I hope gets rectified soon, and the recently announced decompression is a good step, but still, generally speaking: if you have an 18s reload, and you’re usually pitted against opponents with autoloaders and greater pen than yours (if lower postpen damage), you need to make every shot count. Period.
This is where I come to bushes. First defensively, and then in terms of the shooting skills and weak spot memorisation we’ve both been talking about.
Defensively, bushes make my Jagdtiger a lot more viable. They’re part of the layers of security onion, beyond just relying on armour. “Don’t get spotted/hit” is always the first, of course, but in a prolonged engagement - especially if you’re 1v2 or 1v3, you need to stay alive in-between those 18s of reload. That means angling between shots, wriggling unpredictably in place, moving the gun so you don’t get barreled. And good bush placement also allows you to survive far more often in these situations.
This is true for all heavies, and some more than others. Tiger II P is a completely different tank now that I’ve bushed it up. And lol, the Sturmtiger, don’t even get me started :D
Mobility is always an advantage. This is especially and acutely true in a game built on capping points. Armour is always a disadvantage, and quite literally dead weight, up until the point that it actually guarantees a bounce. And while you can mitigate the lack of armour in a variety of ways; you can’t do much to mitigate a lack of mobility.
Vehicles that sacrifice everything for armour protection (they’re slow and have either mediocre guns, or good guns with long reloads) can’t actually benefit from said armour protection, if the game is balanced in such a way that even very light and fast vehicles can cheese their way through your frontal armour. This is why, while many people have rightly the image of an invisible bushed-up ASU 57 or AML in mind, I’d argue that the biggest beneficiaries of bushes are actually heavies, even more so in the current imbalanced situation that greatly penalises them.
(Of course that is realistic, and the reason why heavies went away IRL, but like we’ve established, fun is more important than realism, and there’s no reason to have a vehicle in game if it is not competitive).
Now, let’s come to the question of bushes from the offensive perspective. You say bushes nullify your skills of ID’ing the tank and having weak spots memorised. I agree to an extent with the former, but not with the latter. Countless times I’ve spotted, say, a bushed-up IS tank at a distance and wondered, is that an IS-3 or an IS-6? Obviously that is a moment of indecision, because while their respective weak spots to an APHE shot are somewhat similar, they’re not exactly overlapping. But you can aim for the tracks or the gun, and do real damage, while also knowing that the “hit cam” will show you what tank you’re engaging (even in simulator!).
And once you know it… you can still aim for the weak spot. Yes, the tank is covered in bushes, but you’re familiar with its proportions, size… and when you get it right, it feels incredibly rewarding. One-tapping an IS-6 absolutely covered in bushes at 1600m through the gun mantlet weak spot at Sands Of Sinai is an amazing dopamine rush. And just as skill-based as locating and hitting the same weak spot on an IS-6 without bushes, in my opinion. :)
you can’t play the game without ULQ because you are terrible.
ULQ reduces visibility when on the ground, I don’t understand how people can play with worse vision.
it allows them to have smaller bushes / trees etc and see through forest when people with higher quality wouldnt be able to
Trees are sprites in ULQ, and sprites block thermals and are in general harder to look through.
You aren’t wrong insofar as it is possible to hit weakspots on a bushed tank, but it’s more difficult than if it were non-bushed. The difficulty scales with the precision required to nail the weakspot. On an IS-6, like you mentioned, the weakspot is quite large and easy to locate bush or no bush, as it’s effectively the entire turret face to the right of the gun. Since he can never obfuscate where the barrel is, you always have an anchor to place your shot, just aim at the gun and aim slightly to the right.
But a more common example is the machine gun port on the Jumbo. The entire front of a Jumbo can be hidden by bushes (Particularly easily with the 6 bush pack), and the machine gun port is a small target that isn’t particularly close to anything you can use to anchor your aim. You can eventually find your way in through using the hitcam, but this requires a lot of shots, giving him ample time to respond, even if it’s only by barreling you. And that’s a reaction time he only has because he’s bushed, and I was unable to hit his machine gun port with my first or second shots.
This generally holds true for any weakspot that is either small, not close to any unhidable part of the tank, or bracketed by strong armor. Take the Maus posted just above. I know his armor is weakest where the turret normalizes, which is roughly in line with his guns. But I also know it has a mantlet at that same level that will eat my shot, and if I aim too far out, something like 90mm HEAT won’t kill his crew. And if he’s moving his turret, that’s a third variable. The same holds true for tanks like the T-54s, Tiger IIs, Pershings, Panthers and plenty of other tanks. And that’s just ones with vulnerable turrets. Turret rings are far easier to obscure. Yes, the hitcam will eventually let me put the shots where they need to go, but it hands them a massive advantage in the time it takes me to line up a shot I should have been able to make from the first second.
I’m not going to touch on the overall heavy versus light balance, since it’s somewhat off topic, except to say armor’s value is in giving you a reaction time advantage. If you have good armor, your opponent either has to take extra time to pick out a weakspot accurately, or they have to rush the shot and hope it doesn’t bounce. Meanwhile, if they’re unarmored, all you have to do is line up a shot center mass and click. All being equal, you will win that fight. The Jadgtiger is a bad example of this, as it’s binary. You can either punch through the entire casemate, or you can’t. There’s no need for enemies to take the time to aim an accurate shot, you either get lolpenned, or you bounce them without risk while they scuttle into cover. Tanks like the IS-6 are a better example. in that they have a weakspot that enemies can get through, but only with careful aim.
I disagree that the Jagdtiger is a binary as you say: many guns that can’t get through the superstructure, can still easily get through the LFP and machine gun port, which given the ammo placement, can result in a one-shot. In particular, protection is the lowest at the very corners of the LFP, right next to the tracks; even a T45 APCR round pens there and is likely to cause decent damage.
That’s why - bushed up or not - angling and wiggling in place can save you when playing it. There are further variables too, for example the Tutel’s T29E3 shot can pen the lower corners of the superstructure, but not the rest of it.
Still, again, I generally agree with your observations if not your conclusions: these are indeed added variables. A Jumbo’s machine gun port is hard enough to hit at, say, 900m even if you can plainly see it, especially because we know volumetric can be a bit finnicky in game when you’re trying to be very precise. Meanwhile, even a bushed-up Panther engaging said Jumbo is not exactly gonna be able to hide its turret cheeks (although it can if anything pray to the volumetric gods since its gun mantlet is quite broken). I just don’t see these added variables as a negation of skill, but rather part of the problems you need to solve, obstacles you’re presented with, in order to achieve “X”.
This is especially true when both sides use bushes. For this reason alone I would like to see them made slightly easier to obtain through playing, as opposed to buying it. At a very minimum, they should be available in every battle pass, not one every two. But ultimately a skilled player will also - in time - include “spotting bushes that shouldn’t be there” and “shot placement against concealed weak spots” in their toolbox of skills; and an unskilled player will not.
