So TO is right answear. With TO around, people playing GRB would be ones using air and spaa all the time
TO is not going to happen
Just because You don’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean that it can’t hapeen.
A lot has been said to not happen and later it happened
2 Likes
I am not against TO, i am against CAS, i really hate CAS in ARB and GRB i even made a post to let the CAS players do there own thing in there own CAS only mode
Air players have Air mode
There is ARB with tankers spadding CAS on AI ground units when it is ment to be a pvp game, would CAS be so strong in GRB if they had to spade in GRB
And You say that I use crystal ball
Its true, why is there AI in ARB but not in GRB. Just statecheck how many days i play as fighter, i know so
I don’t really care.
I have spaded my planes in GRB.
You say u want TO yet you do CAS
And what is wrong with that?
By playing it your supporting it
By playing it I can fully understand it and talk about it ;)
2 Likes
Maybe you can shed some light on my topic below, im at 6.0 atm
I think we just need to increase the cost of the SP for CAS. At the moment, as demonstrated by some in this discussion, you can simply speed rush a cap in a low BR tank, J-out, and be in CAS early enough in the match to be almost completely uncontested by enemy air or SPAA.
2 Likes
They’re also very very often decided by artillery, as it remains to this day the most efficient way to quickly deliver tons upon tons of HE upon the enemy. Hell, even if you only count tanks, artillery kills way more than planes do. Was true in WW2, is true today.
And yet, there is a lot of resistance from players to introduce this to the game, why? Because it isn’t fun, dying to something you can’t touch that is very far away from you. This is basic game design: lack of interactivity is not fun, doubly so if it happens when you die/lose.
Just to clarify, Clap, I’m not a “TO mode or bust” kind of player. I’m okay with working on the modes we have until we get to a sweet spot for as many players as possible.
But this realism talk is just a bad argument. It’s bad when people use it to ask for historical MM, and it’s also bad when used to defend CAS. War Thunder is not even remotely a realistic depiction of a battlefield, and generally puts gameplay ahead of realism, as it absolutely should.
1 Like
Artillery has always been in the game, it’s just very underpowered because of how frequently/easily you can call it. They also just added actual dedicated artillery vehicles in the last update, but I’m guessing they are pretty useless.
Let us not argue semantics, please. There is a game mechanic in WT that is called “artillery” but it has next to nothing to do with real world artillery.
They look to be performing okay as tank destroyers. Which is the function they have in game. There is currently no real way for them to behave as they do IRL, and that for very good reasons.
2 Likes
America droped more tnt on Vietnam than both WW’s
I said the most efficient, not the highest tonnage. Which is a pointless comparison anyway, because for reasons I don’t think I need to spell out in this forum, artillery was not a factor in Vietnam.
You literally have a major, conventional land war going on in Europe right now where the enduring centrality of artillery to the battlefield - often with tanks as the victims - is still being proven on a daily basis.
And even for all that… it would not make GRB better in War Thunder.
1 Like