Give tank only mode please - k fanks
2 Likes
I have never quite understood why deploying fighter aircraft for air superiority in ground battle historical mode requires such a high point cost. I believe that allowing SPAA and fighter aircraft to work together to protect ground forces could effectively prevent enemy attack aircraft from harming friendly ground units while also safeguarding friendly attack aircraft entering the battlefield.
Some fighters, even with their default belts, can shred many ground vehicles. Especially in low BRs when .50 cals are present rather early.
Also, it was tried in some events, and it didn’t turn out so well because if one side establishes air dominance early, the other side cannot do much against that.
The following is my personal understanding and opinion, intended solely for discussion. In my view, aircraft with default belts capable of effectively penetrating tanks could have their point costs increased. Additionally, in theory, when both sides have aircraft, they should engage each other rather than having the opportunity to attack ground targets, especially with SPAA present (at least in Cold War and higher battle ratings). Regarding the perspective that one side’s aircraft can establish an early advantage, I believe that even if these air superiority aircraft survive, they cannot switch to ground attack loadouts, making them less impactful in the mid-to-late game, particularly when the enemy has SPAA, which significantly enhances the importance of anti-air defenses. Lastly, I recall that squadron battles have a mechanism allowing aircraft and tanks at the start. This rule set could potentially be slightly modified and applied to Ground Realistic Battles (GRB).
1 Like
“my gamemode is bad so i will unload my frustration on other people in different mode to destroy it and bully tankers”
This is basically the whole cas crowd mentality.
2 Likes
I somewhat agree with you, but as I have said, .50 cals come into play rather early, basically from the beginning of the USA tech tree. Even default belts are deadly for most ground vehicles that early. Also, some tech trees have big gaps in those assets.
There was an African event in the past, and when Allied planes established air dominance, it was essentially game over. P-40s were shredding all the vehicles there, and the Axis side didn’t have a proper air counter at that BR.
As much as I agree, it might help in some BR ranges, but it may also be devastatingly bad in some other BR ranges. This would be quite hard to balance through all BR brackets.
Lmao, what you guys make in your head is something else.
Nobody i know who likes CAS, myself included, is doing it to bully anybody. It’s part of the game and it’s fun to use everything it has to offer.
But i like your hatedriven narrative.
2 Likes
And just how is that data reflective or representative of today. If it is not reflective or representative it should not have been used or referenced in any way, shape or form. If you cannot see that, even though you leaned into it, that is not my problem for pointing out the argumentive fallacy of using that data, it is yours for leaning into it or even referencing it.
Yet you leaned into it as if it was relevant to today. Your failure was even referencing it or leaning into it when it was used by another. You confirmed mis/disinformation. That is willful ignorance.
No, you did not. Referencing data that is eight years old in any way other than to say: “That is crap data as it pertains to this argument and should only be seen as crap data,” is the only responsible way to deal with it. You leaned into it and even now defend your use of it. That is intellectually dishonest as it had no bearing on anything that applies today. At all.
How many weeks is 14 days? Here we are, you still defending the use of the data as relevant and you defending your own use of that data.
It is not at all specious. What is specious is you asserting that 14 days is not weeks.
No it does not. Because you used it. The fake claim is any use of that data, in any way, shape or form unless it is to expose that data as not appropriate for use in this debate today. You did not do that. Despite your (now) disclaimers, you referenced that data in order to bolster any argument you have on this subject.
Again: intellectually dishonest and now you are backpedalling because you are being called out for using it.
No, I watched you lean into that data before I responded. I saw your “disclaimers” that were weak at best, but still used that data to justify your view today.
You are still leaning into it by defending your specious actions in leaning into that data in the first place. You are backpedalling faster than a DB lining up across from Tyreek Hill.
Other than than you leaning into the 2017 data, I have no argument with what you said. The problem is that on using data that you admit is not apropo to the discussion today, anything you say afterword is tainted by that sin of using specious data to bolster your view.
If you do not want to be called out on it, then don’t knowingly put yourself in a position to be called out for it.
And no, using data you admit to not being appropriate is not sensible. Unless, of course, you need it to be sensible so you can defend what is indefensible.
I chose you because you have been the one who has been leaning into it the most and I am not going to have the same conversation with everyone who has improperly and fallaciously used that data to bolster their argument.
“Bogus” is using that data in any way, shape or form. Don’t point your finger at me for taking “bogus” actions when you are the one who actually took bogus actions.
Lmao…I literally said in that excerpt it was not reflective today and that I was only ever referring to what it meant in 2017. I’m not convinced that you are reading what you’re replying to…because that’s a pretty stark miss.
As for your second sentence, take it up with people who started talking about the 2017 data (and claimed it reflective of present day) and then we can talk…because complaining about me while giving those people a clean pass is utterly bogus.
Not sure why you’re fixated on me, but no one buys it as legitimate.
Not at all. If others cannot read properly, that’s their issue–not mine.
14 days is, to the day, the threshold of what could be billed as “weeks.”
Considering the real issue at the heart of that claim is others’ reading abilities, I don’t really care about it either…I did nothing untoward.
Nope, lol and backpedalling? The disclaimers/limitations were noted and in place at the time. 😂
There is no issue with speaking about how it was in 2017 based on 2017 data.
You (supposedly) object to the 2017 data being used at all…but say nothing to the people that tried applying it to 2025. That is…telling.
Spoiler
Despite you saying discussing the data (something everyone involved did) is wrong and that others were wrong for trying to apply it to 2025…you’re only interested in little ol’ me.
Why am I not surprised? lmao
There is no problem with (roughly) discussing 2017 with rough 2017 data and there never has been…that’s just plain analysis and it’s how you look at information for its relevance to its time.
When you bother to criticize those that tried using 2017 data to talk about 2025, then and only thereafter can you expand your criticism to anyone who discussed the 2017 data. I can safely ignore any and all further complaints until then…because they’re selective when there’s no basis for such targeting. Selective criticism has no legitimacy and we both know it.
Yep, Gaijin just care about IGNORING any comments about ‘why can’t we have TO games’. I hate CAS and guess what, if you say anything detrimental or rubbish a CAS lover’s reply then they ALL complain to the moderator who I’m sure doesn’t read them, that I have posted ADVERTISING SPAM. Yep again, it gets removed. Have also had a post IMMEDIATELY REMOVED because I had the temerity to request that something be done about the unsportsmanlike/cheating going on by certain players in RGB and explaing it in detail. No doubt THAT had to be hushed up.
So if you’re fed up when REVENGE BOMBED by a very mediocre player may I make a suggestion…try NAVAL BATTLES, no REVENGE BOMBING there. So much lovely AA fire there, they wouldn’t get anywhere near before being shot down. 🤣🤣 Let them bomb each other.
there was a thread made by a guy complaining about his scout drones getting shot down at the start of the RB match
that guy went on to say that it takes alot of skill to scout ppl through walls and accross the map
and that doing a flank in a light vehicle would take the skill out of playing them
i then checked statshark to see his recently played vehicles and what do i see?
the BMP-2M, 2S38, Su-34 and the Vextra + Rafale for france
i think i dont need to explain what he was doing with that vehicle combo
3 Likes
They all spout the same rubbish; don’t camp then, move away. Firstly, you start moving, you don’t last long and secondly, a tank can’t hide anywhere. Looking from above tanks stick out like a sore thumb, there is a slight halo around them where the outline and the scenery meet plus I have been shot-up in a building with a ROOF. Gaijin will not add the fog-of-war ground smoke from gunfire and burning vehicles or stop aircraft flying in rain and snow. NO REALISM, I’ll stick to watching a full broadside hitting another ship and players thinking they won’t get shot down…much fun. WarThunder, a game for the majority…mediocre. Watch them complain if they read this, always the same players.🤣🤣🤣
CAS not problem but the problem ppl too lazy spawn AA, after all tank destroyed their will spawn AA but is too late
top tier AA already have good AA in every nation except UK, u can counter CAS with plane or AA but ppl too lazy use AA, when their got killed by CAS and then their blame CAS
for ppl use german please dont complaint, because AA in german OP from low tier to high tier compare to other nation
1 Like
Lol, you need skill to scout players using scout drones that is totall lies because is much easier then using light tanks to spot without getting killed.
Update has made the problem worse, If you don’t have Germany on your side with IRIS-T you are dying to CAS.
Teams of Germany, Russia and France are common and that leaves USA with SLAMRAM, China with the memey Wheely boy and Britain with no SAM. I have yet to see a Spyder be spawned.
The balance issue has just been pushed on to Germany who now have the best ground line up while often pairing with Russia and Sweden.
1 Like
It’s funny it has made the German Typhoon amazing as it doesn’t have to face Pantsir and IRIS-T
how dosent it have to face the Pantsir
last time i checked it was in the Russian tech tree and not the german one
He assumes everything of value is always teamed up together.
that is just stupid
and stratistically impossible
1 Like
Russia and Germany are often on the same side now. In fact in most games I have played at top tier recently.
Whereas the only new SAM on the other side is the SLAMRAM with the US the Japanese new SAM isn’t top tier and the Spyder is never seen.
I also meant to type and the Pantsir…As in it’s one or the other.
1 Like