ah yes since seeing front of the enemy turret is only possible when you are advancing on them.
you’re picking a shot area, and said:
but you don’t wanna take into account other facts around the situation you’re showing off.
most gun fights are done, in-game, under 500m (70% time) up to 800m (25% time)
and you expect a Coelian to not notice you at such range, but to look at you cluelessly?
It should be fun to make easy statements by not taking into account a whole picture,…
you’re not making sense there, matey!
its clear emotions are getting better of you, maybe you should take 5 minutes away from the screen.
I merely showed front of the coelians turret with possible shot placement. You are here claiming that it is nearly impossible to do it
YOU are assuming that the person shooting at coelian will be always moving and thus wont be able to aim in time and implying only time you can see coelian turret fron is when you advance on him.
YOU are the one failing to take into account other facts and possible situations. Coelian can come into YOUR view, showing HIS turret front. If YOU are in stationary, defensive position, YOU will have shorter reaction time than Coelian.
COELIAN 500m to the KV-2, using the T-44 as Cover:
3rd person PoV:
scope PoV:
better scope view:
but i’m not able to see and firing at him,…
“oops, i can”:
never said that
but i’m assuming that Coelian Player ain’t a newb since Coelian ain’t authorised to newbies since it’s withdrawal.
so it’s seems like you missjudged what you thought about that shot.
This literally has nothing to do with me saying coelian can come into your view.
or, youre still letting your emotions get better of you and stubbornly defending a hill no one is attacking.
1 Like
if it comes into your view, you’re coming into his.
unless you have to move like 10m to make the shot, and use 3rd PoV to spot the angle (that he could have done too)
and so you’ll be moving, making it harder, because you have to stabilize, and show the T-REX that you’re here.
no emotions: simple visuals/facts/thoughts that you’re denying in the name of “whatever”
3 was built 55 cm Gerät 58
3 Likes
you are now moving a goalpost in order to save face.
and then again
youre for some weird reason constantly assuming that the player facing the coelian will have to always move, which simply isnt the case. player holding a corner against coelian doesnt have to move, coelian will come into his view when he is already stabilized and preaiming.
its very clear that you are just angry and trying to save face, likely because you realized youre wrong, and thats why you are trying to move goalpost.
bottom line is, coelian can be shot in the area around the right gun, which will take out the gunner. that simple fact cant be denied.
Id suggest you to not derail this topic further, and go take a break, or take it to private messages.
1 Like
55 cm would be extreme(ly) awesome. :D
(And guess what my fingers are iching for making a suggestion, once more standart (non powered) trailer mounted guns are possible to suggest. :D )
6 Likes
It’s tough to fight back against this, regardless the tank…
2 Likes
i just got another nuke XD
it’s to low for it’s BR this thing should be 7.7 with heavy tanks br
Edit another nuke XD
3 Likes
Maybe if strategic bombers could bomb the enemy spawn for ticket damage, some SPAA like that and the ZSU-57 could be useful.
Honestly that might be the best idea.
CAS is completely unrealistic for the most part since bombs would ricochet from the ground unless you dropped them at a steep angle or high enough altitude.
And bomb or rocket accuracy is way too high anyway.
There are only a few planes that even have realistic rocket dispersion while most of them act just like slow cannons.
So having planes target some ground zone with bombs instead of tanks would be more realistic and would be far less annoying for tank players, unless it’s a guided missile or retarded bombs.
Getting a PE-8 or lancaster that fly really high can be difficult if not impossible for the 3,7 cm Flak.
(Since long is wish they would add the 5 cm Flak 41 L/67 on DB L4500A and Sd.Kfz.7, 140 RPM of doom.)
Where did that even penetrate lmao
2 Likes
Играть невозможно. легкие и средние танки на этом бр и ниже разбирает в лоб. т28, не проблема. Баланс и БР это поломало сильно. Мало, так она ещё и бронирована хорошо и подвижность есть. С ПТ 76 57 и Hellcat таких проблем не было.
The 4th dimension.
1 Like
Yup - problem is the truest solution to this is fully volumetric armor models on every tank. We are nowhere near that - only specific pieces of specific tanks use fully volumetric armor currently. All others use the old 2D plate model. SPAAGs exploit the armor seams of the old model in addition to the newer “rolling pen bug.”
2 Likes
People who would rather complain first about simply dying to something, claiming its OP, and doing so en masse to get it nerfed, after which those same people go back to doing the same about almost anything else, changing by the flavor of the month.
Repeat that idiocy long enough, and you’re left with an entire game that doesn’t work because everything has been nerfed due to complaints from such people.
BR increases are fine so long as the actual vehicle characteristics are not changed, at least in my book.
It’s much the same thing - everyone in this thread is screaming “shoot the turret, not the hull” which easily kills a Coelian (in my one game where I got a nuke plane but had a patch day bug and couldn’t drop it I was front-penned in the turret by a Russian 12.7). The corresponding counters to Yak-9Ks (or 9UTs) is fighters and SPAAG, because gun CAS is always more vulnerable than bomb CAS due to needing to fly straight at the target as they aim for longer periods than bomb CAS does.
The counters are there, it’s just that some folk would rather whine than go use them.
Actual bugs (like the rolling shell bug enabling penetrations that should not happen) are out of player control. If snail doesn’t give counters, players should go ask for those instead of instantly shouting “it’s OP plox nurf!” every damn time.
Unfortunately it takes an Act of God to get snail to move quickly on anything it seems. If you don’t give them a clear reason to, they’ll put off map fixes until the official servers die (which will eventually happen like with all MMOs), even though in many cases full-sized maps already exist and the borders simply need enlarging, alongside moving of objectives.
Take American Desert, a terrible city map. The actual high-detail tank map is 4x4km! Yet we only play on 1.5x1.5? WHY? Yet without a pressing reason to change it, they will just kick the can down the road forever.
Un-nerfing SPAAGs would serve to be a steel-toed boot up the rear end to get things moving.
The latter case, yes.
The change is intended for Realistic due to the fact that basal game mechanics benefit planes more than AA - mouse aim and 3rd person cam. AA also do not have the numerical advantage attacking planes that they often had (same problem with bombers in Air RB).
Planes with mouse aim and 3rd person can ID targets of opportunity from well beyond AA range, and that’s without the AA shooting from too far out. Planes with mouse aim can near-instantly figure out where AA fire is coming from and adjust course long before the AA can walk their tracers onto the plane. Planes with mouse aim can get far greater accuracy aiming their weapons than reality. AA are stuck on cluttered tank maps, so they benefit less from 3rd person camera. AA also benefit less from mouse aim due to the nature of the controls they would otherwise use. Lastly, AA defending tank columns would usually outnumber attacking planes easily 3:1 or 5:1, but ingame we often see the reverse.
The short range lead marker is intended to be compensation for those unequal benefits. Average players are not going to learn how to use AA “correctly.” And those same players then keep whining how “overpowered” CAS supposedly is, leading to snail sledgehammer nerfs that frequently harm the entire game and not just stick to this mode. Thus the short range lead marker teaches them where and when to shoot.
The difference is that the short range lead marker is tied to crew skill. 1.5km is the max with an aced crew. Vulcan gets the same distance right out of the box.
Relax, you aren’t offending me one bit, man.
I already detailed the reasons for suggesting the short range lead marker above. It’s compensation for how core game mechanics benefit planes WAY more than they do SPAAGs.
Hell, I’d go further still and give all heavy AA (Flak 88, VFW, Russian Flak 76, QF 3.7 Ram, etc) artificial HE-VT shells, give those and all SPHs that already get HE-VT shells the same short range lead marker.
Due to how much faster people can see where shots are coming from compared to if they were limited to cockpit view only (a feature incompatible with mouse aim due to how jittery that is from cockpit view literally inducing motion sickness in people with no history of it like myself), SPAAG do not have enough time to see rounds miss and walk those shots to target.
I just see it as blatantly hypocritical to give say a BTR-80 with full APDS belts and insane mobility a pass at 7.0 but somehow an SPAAG with taller profile and less mobility gets yelled about as supposedly “OP”.
Also in many of those cases you can just .50cal the 40/70 to death. Hell, a Russian 12.7 penned my Coelian front turret in one match.
We do not know the Vulcan’s true power given that it is missing FAPDS and APDS shells. Most SPAAG are missing their best rounds. Really the only one that is above 3.3 which I cannot find any info on is the 20mm Oerlikon on the Skink and AEC AAs - every other SPAAG using a 20mm or larger gun is missing its best shell (or in the case of the Whirbelwind & Italian M42 have artificially neutered APCR in a forced half-belt like all APCR ingame is).
Then Id say that needs to be judged on case by case basis by the person and their argument, and not generally dismissing any criticism as “whining”. I can even ilustrate this further down below with your very own argument.
Lot of times, there might be a legitimate concern of balance and criticism, but arguments that go in depth about the issue either get dismissed as whining, or get buried under avalanche of what could be legitimately considered as whining.
Probably the most notorious example, Kh-38MT (I know I know, were again talking about this. Damn thing lives rent free in my head). There are legitimate arguments about the missile, the most important one was that pre-leviathans they could be launched outside of effective range of any AA bar Pantsir (which just so happens to be in the same nation that has Kh-38MTs so it rarely sees them), which was obvious by simply doing little bit of math - but these were more often than not burried in comments like “KH38MT OP plssss nerffff”.
I could give more examples:
-
Mi-28NM, Z-10ME and AH-64E LDIRCCM being omnidirectional force bubble instead of laser directed countermeasure (gee I wonder what LD in LDIRCCM stands for) making these helicopters immune to infinite number of IR missiles instead of countering one at the time, which coupled with multipath makes them immune to any current AA.
-
current Coelian issues
-
MICA ER obviously dominating top tier air etc.
but thats beside the point I was going for.
As I said, arguments needs to be judged on case by case basis, by the merit of each individual argument, and not to dismiss any criticism of X as whining about X.
Ill admit that sometimes Im glad gaijin refuses to listen to the playerbase when it comes to some more ridiculous suggestions. But that comes at expense of more rational arguments being ignored too so…
I agree with you on this one. Shame this approach more often than not runs into compression issues.
I really do not want to go into Yak-9K issue in coelian topic. I will just say that while I agree with the quoted paragraph, theres more nuance to it, such as 9K flight performance when compared to contemporary fighters, range and accuracy advantage of propeller shaft mounted cannon over bombs and arguably even over rockets, and greater frag potential over bomb carrying aircraft.
Again, case by case. Further down in your comment, you talk about game mechanics benefiting planes more than AA. I know one particular CAS main that would instantly dismiss your comment as whining, especially when it comes to radar guided gun SPAAs.
I mean, just look how long it took for gaijin to add a radar missile AA to Israel (and then they got SPYDER which in its current state can be only described as “lol”). I can understand some of the calls for nerfs. Does not neccesarily mean I support them, especially given how Gaijin is reluctant to unnerf nerfed things.
Not just map fixes. The great snail salting of 2023 is still in my live memory.
I mean im 100% it would get playerbase dissatisfaction high, but if im gonna be honest, i would stop playing ground all together because this would affect all BRs, and I rarely venture above 10.7 nowadays.
I simply wish to avoid such draconic measures.
Allright but obviously it cannot have no weight on its BR placement because that would leave to some seriously undertiered stuff. It needs to have some weight at the bare minimum; at least for vehicles that are capable of engaging ground vehicles in the first place. Cant imagine anti ground capability having much of an impact on Ozelots BR placement.
As for how much should anti ground capability of SPAA have weight on BR placement, Id personally say that it is just as important as AA capability. Some SPAAs simply suck in AA role but are pseudo-IFVs in everything but vehicle class assigned to them. BR obviously needs to reflect that.
I 100% agree with this. You can also add to the list that due to grace of warthunder being a game, players dont have to worry about surviving, so they have no issues rushing AAs or targets overall. Last time this was done in Pacific during WW2 with Kamikaze pilots, people thought of them as lunatics.
Partly for this reason, I see the new SP costs for CAS as big win, because it now puts emphasis on surviving the CAS run instead of just yeeting it at the nearest enemy if you wanna do more than one sortie.
I simply do not agree with this being the solution.
Average player struggles to play normal tanks let alone AA. Look no further than median global K/D for tank realistic being 0.75, according to statshark.
Again, case by case basis. You yourself described in the previous paragraph the issues ground players face in lieu of game mechanics regarding CAS. Im just gonna add that there is a legitimate concern when it comes to certain CAS balancing decisions, such as the aforementioned Kh-38MT issues.
As far as I am aware these exist in arcade. Id say that they simply could and go and learn how to properly lead there, but that runs into issue of how CAS works in arcade.
As I said, I dont agree with the short range lead marker solution, mainly because I see it as further arcadification of realistic battles (and partly because I want to say to those players that struggle to properly lead the enemy aircraft to “git gud”), and it is something i dont want to see. But its less of rational argument and more subjective preference about how the game mode should look, also I currently cannot offer alternative and I would need to think about it more.
Fair enough.
Better safe than sorry, people like to get offended on this forum a lot from what ive seen, and the debate with you has been pleasant so far, so Id like to avoid any miscommunication.
This too would be further arcadification of realistic battles.
Legitimate concern.
Well I personally dont think BTR-80 should be siting at 7.0 either for one reason or another, but I get where you are coming from. Sadly from 6.7 to 7.7, in span of single BR game jumps from what-if 1946 to mish mash of early and mid cold war. And in case of Pzh2000, were talking about what, late 90s? I know I know, DoI is never a balancing factor, but I hate to fight 90s SPH in my 1950s tank.
But that is beside the point, which is comparing Leo 40/70 to BTR.
Issue is not only that there are already present counters to BTR in form of other IFVs and autocannon armed scout vehicles and light tanks at its BR range, the regular tanks it faces are either armored enough to take some beating, or have superior agility to react to threat in time.
Unnerfing Leo 40/70 without moving it up in BR would have this go-cart with superior firepower face tanks that not only can be frontpenned by it, but also would never ever react in time due to inferior horizontal and vertical aiming speeds and hull rotation speeds.
As long as you have a .50cal or equivalent on your tank, which simply isnt always the case. For examle, few UK tanks get roof mounted MGs and fewer of those are .50cal.
Conqueror, which I currently main, has a M1919 converted to 7.62mm. Hardly a useful tool when dealing with fast go-carts.
That might be true but ultimately its the core of the issue were talking about. Should they have their best rounds and if so, should their BR be changed to reflect that?
Anyway I fear we are kinda derailing this topic, so Id suggest to either continue in PMs, or drop it.
Either way thank you for the talk, it was a pleasant forum experience for once and I have some things to think about.