Do you actually need me to provide an example of a ground vehicle that will have no use without aircraft?
1 Like
I’m sorry but what??? Wirbelwind does a fine Job killing planes and i was uptiered to a 6.7 Br in my 5.7 line up…why are people suffering with this SPAA ToT Germany hella lucky to have this…im stuck with a Dual Cannon spaa with slow fire rate (So-Ki) and whirbelwind being 4x cannon and faster fire rate…i took them down much faster than other SPAAs i used…
1st game too, got unlucky with my 1st death.
tbf those aint helis and jets 3-5 miles away i find those to be hella annoying when they can guide in a agm
you can only hear and hope to evade and then hide
actually what era of CAS is the complaint directed towards? all of it or a specific era? cuz 7.0 br and under is meh the early jets can pull a fast one sometimes
5.7 range is where the complains are at and top tier where global CAS happens of 20km which no SAM exist yet to counter, only jets.
You have just stumbled upon the BIGGEST problem with these CAS threads.
CAS varys so much from BR to BR and from Nation to Nation.
No 2 encounters are the same. Just because CAS in 1 situation is OP, doesnt mean its OP in all situations. Nor is all CAS made equal.
in fact CAS is used to describe any kind of ground pound. Despite there being a dozen different types of “CAS” in War Thunder
That is my main issue with it. The topic itself has some fundamental flaws.
In my opinion, the only CAS, outside of a few niche cases, like the mega bombs on the Pe-8 and Lancaster. that is even remotely unbalanced, is the guided weapons at top tier and even then. I dont think it is always actually OP or even that good. and at times, not really even their fault. (Like unguided weapons costing the same as guided ones, why ever use the unguided ones which are worse)
1 Like
Pretty sure they do cost more. And air-to-ground missiles cost more than guided bombs.
But i can agree with rest of it.
Let me quickly test it, but Im fairly certain that at least on the Tornado Gr1. 4x GBUs costs the same as my unguided bomb loadouts, and Im not sure if bomb quantity is taken into account
Yep, looks like quantity or type means nanything. ( I should have checked the GBU-24s, but it might be on size of bomb and less type or quantity of bomb)
I should have checked the harrier Gr7 as well actually, see how things compare, but Im guessing the AGM-65Ds have the same SP cost as the PGMs. (though again, Id not consider them in anyway eqaul)
man being chat banned for two weeks sucks it carries over ingame too so how am i suppose to tell someone im stock and banned and cant help with repairs lol
also pro tip dont talk about haha funny grass in the mod help chat ingame “criminal activity”
Because the way @O_HOgameplay structures his posts and replies, I replied in line…for the sake of simplicity, I’ve spoilered it:
Spoiler
If you insist…bolded here are three false claims and petty insults contained in just a snippet the post I had referenced:
Spoiler
There are far more, but I don’t need to bother with the others because the point has already been proven: you made false statements and were gratuitously petty with boring chatter to myself and others in posts around that time (up to now too).
Realistic Battles thread = Realistic Battles framing
We talk about RB in the RB section…that’s the expectation.
Your statements were imprecise.
You talk to people who play RB…great. That doesn’t invalidate what I respectfully said (limited play in RB means limited insight into its happenings).
Your quip about decency comes across pretty empty when you make false accusations like you did there…I speak based upon the evidence, which all reasonable folks who read what I write can see.
Looking at the facts of the matter leads me to say what I do…I don’t resort to cherrypicking as some other people do.
The average performance varies with the vehicle, but you can get a decent insight into this by watch multiple matches or looking at the averaged numbers generated by certain tracking sites like Thunderskill.
I am generally in the top quarter of the teams I play with…given that there’s 16 to a team, being top 4 or higher means above average. (Though rough, you can look at the middle of the roster for the average performer of a match.)
Public facts =/= misrepresentation
The basic battle numbers in your record are publicly visible…they are simple facts. I did not impart any judgment upon these things except note that you’d said the numbers were not from recent play.
Two issues with this condemnation of SPAA:
- This is your personal experience on the matter
- You are trying to extrapolate AB performance to RB…where the modes vary in many important ways (notably aircraft access, markers and team rosters)
As I said: you cannot expect AB to match RB in a 1:1 manner.
I haven’t misrepresented anything…there I was curious why you must involve another person if you have the relevant experience yourself.
I didn’t comment on ULQ nor his takes, so this is a rather egregious example of a strawman argument.
I asked for you to explain why you didn’t talk about things on your own accord, ULQ is irrelevant to your matters unless you two are joined at the hip.
(A silly meme photo also undercuts the decency talk…it’s just plain embarrassing tbh)
Tankers who fly are not compensating for anything when they use the vehicles they have earned–they’re simply playing the game.
If a player gets an aircraft in RB GFs, they have to have earned SP somehow…this is not necessarily so with a tank respawn.
Incorrect: tankers/tankers who fly/even non-GFs mode related players can advocate for a TO mode and thus be TO advocates.
“TO advocate” is a simple, literal description of advocates of TO. The CASvocate (or whatever) chatter is a divisive epithet against WT players for playing WT, so it has no place here among civil discussion.
Nope…I’ve been patiently civil despite all of the petty comments I noted above and more.
There’s no double standards in acknowledging I am declining the mud wrestling others delight over.
Lmao, if you read the quote again, you’ll find I never called you or anyone else that gets defeated a ‘bad player’…what I said was consider how you could do better in the next engagement.
Everyone gets defeated sometime–nobody wins 100% of the time.
Again with attack on WT players and another false claim, SMH
As a matter of history, some TO advocates have been known and noted to abuse the very vulnerable flagging system in attempts to suppress anyone who doesn’t show total obsequience with their anti-CAS (or anti-WT) views. (Even posts that are strictly factual have been subjected to such attacks because of their disdain for the facts therein.)
The incessant, needless spamming of threads complaining about defeats by CAS highlight this…and showcase the abuse that the forum and its moderators endure because some people wish to litigate in-game defeats here.
Don’t falsely accuse WT players at large of false flagging–that also isn’t decent.
My answer was entirely honest and explained:
ULQ didn’t show the full context of the match, so I declined to speculate on hypothetical actions when I couldn’t even see all conditions.
Why should I? Do you buy items people have only partially described to you? (Probably not and understandably so!)
An enemy TD being destroyed by an enemy vehicle doesn’t disprove my claims or anyone else’s…defeats occurring in a combat game is expected.
That figure referred to the general average share of tanks killed by aircraft, which has indeed sat around 8-10% for eons.
Either you are unaware of the data and its history or were being gratuitously pedantic and petty again.
It is honestly embarrassing that you are making these fake claims about me while misrepresenting things, given that’s not what I said:
I didn’t say you couldn’t take part in this thread or others like it, I only said that a lack of current experience inhibits your ability to contribute to the thread.
False claims about me only destroy your own credibility…they do no harm to me.
What I have said stands because evidence and the facts support them…those are the things I look to and rely before I speak. That’s how to go about taking stances on issues.
Lmao
- @GeorgeCarlin305 did not explain he was alluding to AB experiences in this RB thread until questioned about it
- I never bothered looking at his statistics (and haven’t) because such things are generally unnecessary
- I generally don’t bother people over statistics, as they can be deceptive are heavily prone to manipulation
The only reason your record came up was basic facts (like total playtime), which I handled in an entirely neutral manner and didn’t foreclose upon you for it–yet you’ve lashed out an me for it ever since.
Logically, no–why would you?
A destroyed vehicle is a destroyed vehicle…the win comes because the SP costs differ and the tank is cheaper. A suicide bombing aircraft will always lose in a 1v1 exchange with some GFs vehicle on that basis.
As a general comment to TO advocates: attacking tankers who fly for being WT players doesn’t help the TO cause–it only hurts it.
If TO advocates had spent less time in years past attacking tankers who fly and others and more time honing the idea of TO and championing a discussion of it, we might have had TO by now (the 2019 proposal looked serious!).
I encourage the people honestly interested in TO to be civil about their efforts to pursue it…attacking other WT players because they choose to play all vehicles in the CA game of WT doesn’t win you friends nor support.
Don’t repeat the same mistakes TO has suffered under for years…
2 Likes
Thank you, greatly appreciated.
As for the rest of it. I agree.
Are there issues with CAS. Yes
Is TO a Solution. Yes, but not the only one.
Is TO a perfect solution. Not yet. But it could be with work/the right implemenation
Am I willing to discuss TO, CAS changes, etc. Yes.
I just ask that it to be a discussion and to not be insulted in any way,
So thank you for this. I couldnt have put it better any other way
1 Like
incorrect i have experience in both the problem is its over the course of 9 years with a 4 year gap between 2019-2023 (said oct 2022 eariler by mistake)
and im still wondering why we have early tank release sized maps
I have been a part of the TO discussion for many years and have done a fair bit to support the idea (suggesting TO advocate put forward a draft idea for the suggestion (albeit unofficially at first), suggesting TO rallies to demonstrate/trial the idea, etc.) and have seen how the hapless idea of TO has been abused and put into the mud by its own supposed supporters.
Rather than trying to court support and curry favor for their ideas, TO advocates on the old forum eagerly turned their thread into a complaint chasm anytime some airplane gave them a wedgie in battle.
Predictably, TO failed…though perhaps the most notable failure was in late 2019 when Gaijin floated the idea of implementing TO with a perma-event framing (reminiscent of SB) with a smaller range of BRs (perhaps rotating) to ease MM needs.
TO advocates rejected Gaijin’s TO pitch cold(with the original poster of the TO thread insisting they should ‘hold out for a better deal’) and we’ve never heard about TO from Gaijin since then AFAIK.
If you read back through that thread (and most of the new forum’s too I’d imagine), I’d bet you’ll find the worst reaction most people have to the idea of TO is ambivalence or apathy (not many actively opposed to TO).
Despite all of that all, WT players just going on about their day and playing all their vehicles pass through here and get to see all these diatribes against tankers who fly…it’s absurd and wrong. That is what holds TO back.
As I’ve said before…TO advocates are the biggest hurdle to TO. They repeatedly refuse to get out of their own way.
4 Likes
i can promise bigger maps more players and cap point add in some AI like bunkers with AT guns etc and it would be a fun engaging game not this COD style TDM every game
Yep. Even this thread’s title is designed to specifically piss off anyone who even uses CAS. No wonder there is rarely a discussion.
2 Likes
The way your previous comments read, it appeared you were referring to AB until the death rate matter was brought up.
As it stands, a gap in play time may inhibit certain things but it doesn’t rule out your ability to comment on matters (currency in the relevant place is ideal though).
(By the same token, I don’t talk much about RB AFs at 8.X-9.X range because, although I have played hundreds of battles there, I usually do so for events and so it is short hops instead of sustained gameplay there. I know of generalities of that area…but I’m seldom current in the day-to-day happenings and meta of it.)
Yeah, it really is.
I have this post:
on CAS changes I’d like to see and I do genuinely believe that part of the problem is the gamemode and map designs. They are almost perfectly designed for CAS.
An idea I had (though have not yet put pen to paper on) was to have multiple RB GFs matches playing out on a large map with an RB AFs match playing overhead and objectives like ‘capture the airfield’ being in place rather than the typical ‘A point’ and all that.
For those who say they’d like to take their tanks into the AFs mode for a venture…here’d be an opportunity.
The map [Alt. Hist.] Krymsk was the mode I’d figured on with this…it could probably have at least 5 or 6 tank battles playing out beneath an overarching RB AFs battle if Gaijin pursued the concept and turned it into what WWM was expected to be.
The ‘vocally opposed’ thread title is also loaded…it’s very toxic and it’s why the threads become dumps.
Trying to litigate in-game defeats on the forums by lashing out by text isn’t a pleasant way to do business.
2 Likes
id believe that small changes would be good but id start atleast a moderate overhaul cuz the game is 12 years old i guess because of the player base it can stay strong but d4mn thats hittin a long time heroes and generals are gone which is 2012 at any moment over the course of a year you can easily see those 6 figure player online numbers start to drop