Within a 1.0 BR range, any tank can kill any other tank (defined as light, medium, heavy and Tank destroyer).
Now, sometimes you need to get creative like shooting off someone’s gun and tracks and then call artillery on their gridsquare using squad marker.
This is assymetrically balanced.
Analogous to a Bf109F4 being able to beat a Spitfire Mark II or Vb despite getting absolutely clowned on in a simple turnfight.
It is also analogous to a Fw190A8 taking on a F4U-4 and finding some narrow niche where it can finally beat that monster.
It is also analogoues to a Yak9K managing to take down a Ki-84.
What’s common in all these examples?
You stay in a single vehicle and take on another vehicle that’s up to 1.0 BR range above you using creative tactics and narrow performance advantages to win what should heavily favour your opponent.
This is balanced.
What is not balanced is taking something like a Challenger or a Comet - tanks without rooftop MGs - and expecting them to beat an enemy aircraft.
The only way the Comet or Challenger will ever beat an enemy aircraft is if that plane crashes into them during a misjudged dive and they got clipped by coaxial .303 MG.
This is not balanced.
US tanks theoretically have a ‘chance’ at beating enemy aircraft thanks to doctrinal decision to put an anti-air .50 cal on the roof but that anti-air .50 cal is only going to kill people with questionable approach to flying (they’re flying low and slow rather than maintaining 450-550 km/h, 60 degree or higher dive angles and a loiter altitude of 1.0-2.0 km)
This again is not balanced.
You wouldn’t consider a 2.7 Yak 1 fighting a 5.0 Bf109 G14 balanced, would you?
I think others are of the opposite opinion and thus my previous answer still applies.
You personally not having an issue doesn’t mean that other aren’t having that issue.
I fail to see how your arguments adequately explain how TO would be bad for the game as a whole. Many players argue for said mode using the same arguments against the current modes that you use against TO.
You might not agree, but the way your arguments are presented is a subjective thing and not an objective fact. It makes it feel disingenuous even if not intended as such.
Wrong. You simply can not understand the concept that TO would benefit every part of community, allowing to remove artificial nerfs from CAS as well as allowing people to enjoy playing without pure ground.
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Imagine when you walk down the road that every 10m there are randomly placed spikes on the ground for 2m that you have to actively look at and step between. That is likely how players that oppose CAS feels. Sure, the spikes are avoidable if you focus, but wouldn’t you rather them not be there to begin with in that situation?
Now you personally might not feel like the analogy works because you aren’t personally having those issues with CAS, but others certainly are. So if it had given you that feeling to play against CAS, wouldn’t you also want it removed?
I think you’re to set in your own experience and fail to see how others are able to have issues where you are not.
Not asking for anything to be removed, I simply want the choice to sweep those spikes off the pavement along with many of the friends i play with and many within the forum, we want the choice. Not the removal of anything.
