Of course it is not the same, but it still exists.
Which is quite easy to do, especially with markers that You get above their heads when they get hit and by simply looking at the minimap.
So the same as now but a little harder?
I just want to ask You one question, what do You prefer to use:
Both. It’s a mixed ground battle. Ideally I want better maps and servers with 40 on each team, so that there is always someone in spaa and fighters giving air support. The only time CAS is oppressive is when no one on your team is bothering to do anything about it.
Yes more challenging to earn the aircraft that will do the most damage, while making it easier to get aircraft that will do the least damage. Damage can still be done, but mitigating how mich can be done with little effort.
What do I perfer overall? I don’t really have a huge preference, it just depends on how I’m feeling that day. I play Ground, Aircraft, Costal, Bluewater, and some helicopters (but only in ground because PVE sucks). Lately I have been playing ground to get to my 8.7 US vehicles, grining my British lineups, and grinding my Russian lineups.
You know it is the same now?
Aircrafts without weaponary are easy to spawn (cost less SP) while the ones with weaponary cost more SP?
You know it can be made different. Right now you can spawn a P51 with rockets and 2 1000 lb bombs for around 400ish spawn points if I remember right. Under my system you’d be able to spawn the P51 without ordnance for cheaper to encourage air to air play, but to spawn it with air to ground payload, it would cost around 700 sp instead of 400. Plus in my system, payloads will be charged by piece instead of the most expensive weapon determines cost for all.
Woah.
First, at the beginning You are given 450 SP to use at ground units.
Payloads go off of the most expensive weapon in that loadout. If you use 1000lb bombs on a P51, you can bring the HVARs for basically no sp cost. Same with high tier aircraft that carry Mavericks, you can bring bombs for basically free.
If the values I have now aren’t correct, then I will adjust them I’m just in preliminary values right now and I have much more in game research to do.
Of course.
But again it is almost the same thing we have right now. This is not going to change anything regarding balance, just prolonge it a little.
I personally think this is a good start, but it won’t work as well as it could at higher battle ratings as more options become available and guided ordnance becomes an option, on top of loadings becoming complex, and utility features like CCIP and A2G radar modes & Thermals and TGPs (e.g. qualities inherent to the airframe) make target selection and location fast and easy.
As well as the potential for new types of ordnance to apear (e.g. Cluster bomb(Rockeye II) or Dispenser (e.g. CBU-3) / Anti-Radiation(e.g. HARM) / FAE(e.g. BLU-95) / Incendiary(e.g. M69) / GPS&INS(GBU-31) / Standoff(AGM-154), etc. or Utility stores like DECM / ECM pods, External Fuel tanks, radar & targeting pods etc.) that could upset the balance so potential additions may be worth consideration to better pigeonhole use cases and target sets and conceptualize what a fair counter would be especially if it was to replace costs in other modes as well.
But if you were going to go down the route of fixed ordnance costs, an airframe type specific SP modifier might be useful to consider, as well as splitting up Attacker (into Strike & Attack airframes; the difference being if they can defend themselves adequately or not, e.g. A-5 vs A-6 vs A-4 / A-7; the A-5 uses its speed, The A-6 has endless options and can easily download ordnance to restore performance, and the A-4 / A-7 is shit out of luck) and multirole capabilities (where does the F-15E go? that is a question for the ages, let alone the F-111F).
Prolonging the spawning of heavy ground attack payloads means you’ll have to do better to earn them, and then planes being spawned later could be countered by the increased presence of SPAA when players not doing so well spawn in those cheap SPAA.
Ah, the ‘teamwork’ argument.
Yea, I’m working low tiers first because it is much, much simpler to do so. I haven’t quite figured out how I want to approach high tier yet because things could become prohibitively expensive for dumb bombs, and not quite expensive enough for those guided munitions. Thanks for the input.
I disagree that it won’t do more. To me, it will increase the skill ceiling required to bring out these aircraft with heavy atg payloads. Which is what I see as one of the primary priblems with the system right now. If you get a cap now you get a full outfitted fighter. I’d like that to be a guns only fighter and require those players to work harder/perform better to get those atg payloads. I think it would cut down on some of the issues that people dislike. I’m not saying that it’s a perfect fix and Warthunder will be perfect, I’m just saying it would be an improvement.
As I have said, it is just an SP increase which will anger people who like current system and one that won’t change anything for people wanting to use tanks.
Ok, you can have that opinion. I’m just going to continue trying to improve the situation.
The problem is, it isn’t going to improve anything.
Oh you must be all knowing, huh? You are just putting your opinion out there. Thanks for that, but I disagree with it.
Tell me then, what difference does it make for a tank player if a vechicle he can’t do anything against will come after one or three minutes?
Aircraft type and ordnance matter. Planes will always be in ground, so mitigation of what planes can be spawned easily with atg payload can improve the overall situation for ground vehicles while encouraging more air to air combat.
Still waiting for an answear to my question.
What difference does it make for a tank user if a plane (let us say with a bomb) will come after one minute of the game or three minutes?