That’s a different problem in RB though, that is a bit more complex there. For one, the SPAAs should have lead indicator if they are built around some mechanical aiming systems or multi-crew strategies for aiming. This is part of the reason why significantly less amount of players will even spawn in SPAAs - if they can’t do anything because they don’t know how, they won’t do it.
The front line could be a real front line where behind the front on the enemy side there are AI SPAAs and you can’t be chased in a plane towards the airfield because you’ll get shot down before that happens. This would also make it so that you can’t easily strafe enemy ground vehicles from behind.
And for the record, if you want to play tanks, you want to play tanks and not sit and cover others from the planes. The assumption that someone has to do it is a faulty one here if we’re talking about potentially changing how the game is made. The fault is not in the players not wanting to play SPAA. It’s the developer’s fault for creating a game mode and game mechanics that penalise players for not playing what they don’t want to play. And realism in that matter has nothing to do with it - you should make a game that plays well and not that is hyper realistic but you need to repair tracks manually by going out and doing all the actual realistic operations to repair the tracks. Games have conventions the build to limit the amount of actual stuff that player needs to do for it to be playable. If SPAAs need to be manned by players because it’s realistic, why we do the complete opposite for artillery? Who not force portion of the players for each team to sit in artillery away from the battle area and otherwise your team doesn’t have artillery strikes? That would be realistic and coherent with forcing players to use SPAAs.
The problem boils down to gaijin choosing to make those openings to penalise players with various mechanics so they can control the game outcome better.
if you’d want the CAS to be realistic, then it should be more like it worked in AB SQB - one team had to establish air domination to introduce CAS planes/bombers, but it was a complete steamrolling of one side by another, and wars are like this. It’s just that games are not fun this way if they are not balanced, so saying that it has to be like that because of realism is stupid. You’d rather have realistic game where the players stop playing because it’s not fun rather than take up a convention that makes the game more balanced and thus fun for everyone engaged in it.
It’s not what I think - it’s what is written on the roadmap. AB will get exit zone for aircraft in air mission which will reward you with a lootbox at the end of the match. But knowing the crap that you get from SL lootbox, these won’t be better, so noone will care when they will want to progress battle pass or make better score for event. It’s a way to do something that won’t change the status quo of current balance and control of the match outcome. Because bombing runs do decide the match outcome - if you’re supposed to win, then your bombing run will be splendid, if you’re supposed to loose, your bombs will do nothing and your time in the air will worsen your situation on the ground.
