2 Likes
And why should you be allowed to spawn in more and more aircraft so can you bully tanks that can’t defend themselves? It might be fun for you but its not fun to be on the receiving end to have a 250kg/1000lb or 500kg/2000lb bomb dropped on your face and there’s nothing you can do about it except spawn in a fighter which will lose you points towards the tank you’re grinding just to get rid of the gnat that is in the sky. (I already spawn a fighter to get rid of CAS. My favourite activity is bringing Spitfires to get rid of Yak-9Ks.)
2 Likes
Pretty much nailed it, Imagine actually bringing a full line up of br appropriate vehicles to top tier rather than a single premium with a plane it’s ground breaking almost like what you have to do at all br’s
The even bigger concern with such a drastic CAS change in GRB is balancing issues.
As the current GRB ground vehicle battle rating is made with the concern of whether they have strong CAS at such BR or not.
So now if Gaijin is gonna make the CAS in GRB only play a marginal role, it needs to come with very significant BR rebalancing for ground vehicles in GRB, or it’s gonna be a disaster.
1 Like
Yea. Some people already do that 1 tanks 1 plane anyways so to them it won’t make a difference lol They just move on the the next.
Strongly agree. I do understand ground vehicle-only players’ dislike for CAS players, but I believe Gaijin’s simplistic and crude changes won’t truly balance the game. Instead, it will only reduce player enthusiasm, make battles more one-sided, and render matches (especially at WWII battle ratings!) more tedious. Rather than arbitrarily increasing the SP cost for a second aircraft, it would be wiser to reduce the SP cost for fighters without any ground-attack ordnance – for instance, setting the base SP to 450 while fighters with no air-to-ground weapons cost 451 SP; alternatively, the SP for pure air-superiority fighters could decrease over time (e.g., reduced by 100 SP after 5 minutes of battle), or the system could dynamically lower friendly pure fighter SP costs proportionally based on the number of enemy aircraft present. I believe this heavy-handed balancing will significantly impact both WWII and Cold War BRs. In WWII BRs, aircraft ground attack isn’t overwhelmingly efficient, and at certain ratings (like around 5.7), Soviet and American players heavily rely on aircraft to counter Germany’s superior armor and firepower; this change would make it harder for them to win. For Cold War BRs, while radar SPAA is common, aircraft often lack ground-attack ballistic computers, putting them at a disadvantage already; this change will further weaken air power and make comebacks even harder for the losing side.
2 Likes
Constructive feedback on the new CAS SP changes in GRB
Summary
While I understand the goal of reducing early snowballing, the new SP rules that treat any A2G loadout as a “ground-attack configuration” (even a single bomb/AGM) end up punishing CAS across the board. In practice, this (1) devalues players’ long-term investment in dedicated strike aircraft, (2) artificially boosts multirole fighters, and (3) narrows combined-arms gameplay.
Why the change hurts combined arms
- It denies progression and specialization.
Many of us spent months mastering SEAD/strike workflows and grinding attacker lines. If merely equipping one bomb/AGM kicks a plane into a costlier bracket, that specialization is treated as a handicap rather than a viable role. - It elevates multirole frames while binning dedicated attackers.
Multiroles can jettison or carry token A2G with fewer trade-offs, whereas true attackers (A-7, Su-25 family, Tornado IDS, A-10, etc.) are locked into higher SP for doing the job they were designed for. This tilts the meta away from variety and toward “fighter-with-extras.” - It disproportionately hits trees that rely on dual-CAS lineups.
Nations whose ground lineups revolve around two strong CAS slots—e.g., the U.S. F-15E + F-16C playstyle—lose a key identity and power pillar. The result isn’t balance; it’s homogenization. - SEAD just got harder, and now it’s also less accessible.
After the recent change to split air-defense elements, anti-radiation runs are already more challenging. Increasing SP for CAS further discourages SEAD: fewer aircraft spawn, so fewer chances to counter evolving SAM nets. - SPAA gameplay gets hollowed out.
If fewer players can justify spawning aircraft, SPAA has no targets and becomes a dead slot. That removes one of GRB’s most distinctive loops—tanks ↔ CAS ↔ SPAA—in favor of one-dimensional brawling.
Practical alternatives (keep the goals, avoid the side-effects)
- Differentiate by ordnance weight/impact, not a binary tag.
Scale SP with A2G mass/AGM count and guidance class, with sensible caps. A single 500-lb bomb shouldn’t cost like a full strike package. - Role-sensitive SP:
Lower baseline SP for dedicated attackers; slightly higher for top-tier multiroles carrying heavy A2G. Reward specialization instead of punishing it. - Performance-aware adjustments:
Modest, temporary SP increases only after high impact CAS (e.g., multiple vehicle kills in one life), not simply for equipping pylons. - SEAD incentives:
Reduce SP or grant RP/SL bonuses for successful radar suppression/launcher kills to keep the CAS↔SPAA loop alive and meaningful. - Data-driven trial:
Run a limited-time event or BR-band test with the above knobs, publish the metrics (CAS spawn rate, SPAA uptime, ground deaths to CAS), and iterate with the community.
Conclusion
Please keep the objective—curbing unfun snowballs—but avoid blanket penalties that erase dedicated strike play. Combined arms thrives on interdependence: tanks, CAS, and SPAA all need reasons to exist in the same match. The current implementation removes those reasons instead of balancing them.
3 Likes
lmao.
1 Like
My man what are you on about? French ground is great. No need to compensate with CAS.
Laughing isn’t an argument. The suggestion targets outcomes (snowballing after a high-impact CAS life), not loadouts. It curbs runaway rounds without taxing low-impact or failed SEAD attempts, keeps SPAA relevant, and avoids forcing everyone into multiroles. If you disagree, please explain which of these goals it fails and why.
If your ground lineup revolves around 2 planes reconsider your choices
Leclerc’s armor is hardly on par with Leopard 2A5/A6 series, and France doesn’t even have a single top-tier light tank.
A nation’s meta can legitimately revolve around CAS just like others revolve around heavy armor or top-tier MBTs—diversity in strengths is the point of combined arms, not a flaw in “choices.”
1 Like
The leclercs just have a different playstyle that’s all. And you can easily take the vextra as a light tank. Sure it’s not top tier but it really is not missing effectiveness. Also you are just talking about top tier. At other tiers it’s fine (except for like 2.0 to 4.0 )
I love playing my Leclercs they’re incredibly effective and you have 4 and a half with the MSC(poor MSC just a got BR bump too, poor france)
wait it did? Is that coming in the next update?
I hate that thing with a passion. From standing still you can’t move if you steer fully to one side, the dart is meh and the gun depression sucks.
The mobility from a standstill sucks I will give you that. But the dart is literally better than the leclerc stock dart so it can be used at top tier without that much issue.
Of course it can be used, if you like no spalling.
Anyway i use the premium VBC, at least that one can zoom around the battlefield.