Since you are unwilling to address major issues then a quick fix is necessary. Forcing cockpit view will limit the effectiveness of CAS, increase the effectiveness of SPAA, and reduce the overall spam of CAS by requiring more skill and attention to use.
This change will not resolve all issues with CAS but it will be an immediate relief to the player base which currently is forced to play Air Realistic Battles despite the game mode being labeled Ground Realistic battles.
To be honest it would be interesting to see it trialled to see the results. Though I think there might be some issues of some planes not having proper cockpits/gunner controls on bombers.
edit: higher tiers would also be much harder to do vs radar sam/spaa where 3rd person helps for CCIP low level bombing runs.
Outright lying about what happens in a game fantastic defense
Remove SPAAs from there because some aren’t able to counter CAS at it’s own BR.
In reality, SPAA guns like the Bofors 40mm during World War II were indeed equipped with ballistic lead computers, a technological advance that simplified the aiming process. This historical accuracy allowed gunners to focus on keeping their sights on the target, while the computer handled lead calculations.
However, in the gaming context of War Thunder, the implementation of such a realistic ballistic lead computer presents challenges. The concern is that it may lead to dissatisfaction among Close Air Support (CAS) players and potentially impact the sales of premium aircraft—a significant revenue stream in the gaming industry.
Despite the potential hurdles, it’s worth noting that the desire for increased authenticity is a sentiment shared by many players. The integration of this feature into War Thunder would require a substantial overhaul of the existing system. Whether Gaijin will opt for such a modification remains uncertain, as the gaming community awaits updates on potential improvements to War Thunder’s gameplay mechanics.
Honestly, the kind of gameplay you are seeking already exists: Sim Battles.
How to tell you have no idea what are you talking about without telling you have no idea what are you talking about.
Radar assisted guns existed during ww2… on warships. And it applied to large caliber artillery like 127mm used by destroyers as primary armament and secondary armament on cruisers and battleships. Medium caliber AA like Bofors at best had separate targeting station with reflector/collimating sight, movement of which was replicated by twin/quad mount. Radar guided stations for these happened post ww2 and by that time Bofors was rapidly becoming outdated against jets.
Cold war SPAA with radar already can present actually good leading indicator, if not for radar box being wobbly preventing perfect hit with first round, most likely “balancing” feature.
IRST trackers produce the same tracking capability except without wobbling and without spiking RWR of the aircraft, also curiously how essentially low resolution IR camera can get accurate distance readout for accurate ballistic calculation. But hey, historical accuracy is fine when benefits you, not the others amrite?
Simulator battles adjusts flight controls as well as forcing cockpit view.
If you think RB should restrict flight controls then advocate for that.
I’m not referring to the lower-quality American reproductions of the Bofors gun. I’m specifically discussing the high-quality Swedish-made 40mm Bofors guns, the third member of the calculation was behind them and worked with a mechanical computing device.
This exemplifies Swedish craftsmanship.
How many a week now i see something like this pop up? i lost count already instead of learning how to deal with but noooooo like crying in the forum won’t help anyway well Adapt or die that how it is no place for weakling there are SPAA use it not enough? then go get yourself a plane and go shoot them down how hard it can be?
I’ve looked up and “directors” or “predictors” as they were called did exist, but still relied on crew experience to guess range and speed correctly. Not all too different from player manually aiming the gun and shooting by experience/guess.
BTW US did copy UK made director Kerrison Predictor under their own designation, M5 for Bofors and it proved effective. Also one snippet I’ve found in description of a reflector sight, such Director was used by stationary AA emplacements, usually in number of four guns per Director.
Who here doesn’t know how to spawn a SPAA / Fighter
No one here is asking for a ground only game mode
You can’t first spawn with a fighter
I understand that there might be a rush in capturing a point, eliminating an opponent, and then ditching the tank—perhaps for the thrill of dominating the skies with an aircraft. While I’m not accusing you of this behavior, it’s an example that resonates with some players. It’s frustrating to witness that satisfaction turn into disappointment or frustration, especially when countered by SPAA or a tank.
However, rejecting the opinions of other players outright can spoil the experience for everyone. Let’s try to appreciate the diverse strategies and perspectives within the game, fostering a more positive and engaging environment for all.
Yeah, good luck countering these:
Simulator mode.
I’m a bit confused here. My point was about highlighting the historical accuracy and craftsmanship of the Swedish-made 40mm Bofors guns from World War II. Currently, these guns in the game don’t engage helicopters, as they weren’t designed for that purpose. I’m not sure how helicopters with guided missiles relate to what I was discussing. Did I miss something, or are we on different pages here?
map designs are bad because people don’t like big map because of driving too long and positioning which is too much for the new generation of War thunder players, so they do ask for small map because CQC pew pew and they forget that small map get point faster it means spawn CAS also faster and here we are crying in the forum for the stuff they ask for it.
I understand the frustration with map designs, especially when there’s a preference for smaller maps to facilitate close-quarters combat. It’s true that some players find the extensive driving and positioning on larger maps less appealing, especially for the newer generation of War Thunder players. However, it’s crucial to recognize that smaller maps also have their drawbacks, such as faster point capturing and the quicker arrival of spawn CAS. Striking a balance between map size and gameplay dynamics seems to be a complex challenge. It’s a valid point to bring up, and I appreciate the discussion on the forums, even if it sometimes leads to unintended consequences.
This has been part of WT for several years, if you think its new… it says more about you then anything like.
Its not really a major issue. They fire off 1 missile, everyone knows they exist, somebody guns it down in a plane because easy kill.
Sure, SPAA have a hardish time, but its really not a problem lol. Making the “well you cant shoot this down” argument is moot.
I understand that humor is part of the community banter, but let’s be mindful of the diverse experiences players have in War Thunder. It’s worth acknowledging that not every player has unlocked an SPAA vehicle, and skill development varies for everyone. Instead of mocking, perhaps we can share constructive tips or insights to foster a more positive and helpful environment for all players, regardless of their current challenges.
