TO or not it’s just a game, i can adapt
and i play CAS too, from time to time.
I wasn’t crying for a TO mode, i was merely pointing out that :
is an incorrect statement.
You did not play any game in a rank 8 ground vehicle at the time being, so that would be incorrect.
you played 300 games with a single vehicle with below average performance.
the goalpost would not be moved, its static. a few hundred games isnt enough to form a correct opinion, at least compared to a thousand plus games
we know AGMs exist, its why this thread exists…
your comment isnt helping anyone for or against TO
People are rightfully upset when they die from something they couldn’t counter from the start.
The issue is that they’re upset they died to something they can counter, and anytime som1 points out how easy it is to counter, they call that person bad. CAS hater arguments and especially TO are just hypocrisy all the way down.
How do You counter a plane on sands of Sinai when You are in a nashorn and he comes from an angle You can’t shoot at?
Meanwhile the plane can easily counter Anti-air by just following proper dive bombing doctrine. Drop your bomb from ~800 meters and 60 degrees and you’re only vulnerable for a few seconds. Worst case is if someone is sitting in the line where you’re doing your unloaded low-altitude extension and catch you unaware but that’s just bad luck.
I’m not even mad, you and Pale_Horse_Rider are inventing a state of mind i’m not currently in
I play CAS from time to time, and i sometime abuse it a bit (namely Rafale)
At top tier you either have to play SPAA or planes to counter the planes (assuming it can counter, which depends on nation and BR), or you have to leave the game. It’s a fact that without TO, you can not continue to play tanks if a plane is up (unless an ally spawns an AA for you, but this is conditional, not guarenteed). The problem is that tanks is the reason many people play Ground forces.
Or in other words, as it currently stands : some people have to play classes of vehicles they do not want to play to counter a certain type of threat, which isn’t the case for air modes for example.
Does it mean i want to see CAS and mixed battles completely gone ? of course not, i personally think it still has a lot of potential and that it should be expanded and improved further
I doubt anyone wants current GRB to go away, people just want another option to play without combined aspect, just like planes can in ARB.
It, infact, is nothing like planes in ARB.
It’s exactly the same thing.
Standalone mode without combined aspect.
Planes have their own mode because adding ships or tanks wouldn’t work.
You want TO cause you’re bad at fighting planes.
TO and ARB have nothing in common.
Gee, idk, maybe don’t take a massive, slow moving, open top vehicle and try to play it in the middle of a wide open area where it has no cover.
Rank 8 is new and it hasn’t always been top tier. I’ve played Rank VII at 11.7, and I refuse to believe the extra .3 BR to 12.0 makes that much of a difference.
I take it a “correct” opinion is one that agrees with you and anything else cant be right huh?
ARB sucks, why would you want another ARB? I would rather ARB go away than TO be added.
This sounds like you’ve never actually flown CAS. That tactic might work IRL but in the game dropping that high on anyone who isn’t camping is not viable. Assuming your bomb stays on target, all people have to do to counter it being dropped from that high is not stay in one place for too long.
So restrict yourself on what you want to play, that’s basically their entire point
Besides the fact that it does because you don’t meet the most unbalanced CAS (13.0), you don’t seem to fare too too well in the challenger. Maybe CAS does not bother you that much, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t go the same way for everyone
Not playing vehicles in situations where they have poor tactical viability is a pretty normal “restriction.” Sorry you can’t sit in the middle of a field and be a massive sitting duck target without someone taking advantage of your poor choices.
That’s not even the highest BR tank I’ve played (T-80UK), but when I did play the Challenger it was usually a third spawn after an uptiered Rooikat 105 and the G-LYNX. My stategy for that BR was spawn the Rooikat (even though its a 9.7) and use it to cap a point and/or get a few kills so I could spawn the G-LYNX which slaps. Then if I got shot down the Challenger was up next, so yeah as a third spawn it was meh performance, the match was almost over by then with not many targets left.
If you don’t understand what is said, or have to manipulate it to make a stance that you’re making, everything you’re trying to say is indeed incorrect, wrong, or even misleading and intentionally misrepresented.
Your misinterpretation, and malintent, isn’t my problem. It’s yours.
Tell me you don’t know what context means without telling me you don’t know what it means…
People are irrationally upset at them dying in a game.
„Don’t play what You want”
Not to mention nashorn being perfect for big open maps as a sniper vehicle.
If you cannot comprehend the concept of tactical viability I’m not sure how to help you.
The Nashorn is a very situational vehicle, and overall not really all that good. It’s big, it’s slow, it’s open topped, and the only thing it has going for it is a big powerful gun. At German 5.3 the Panther D is more mobile, better armored, slightly less huge, has a roof, and the gun is only slightly less powerful. Between the two the extra power of the Nashorn isn’t all that relevant for what you’ll be facing. Being open topped makes it not only a prime target for any plane, but an easy kill for any tank that remembered to bring some HE rounds. Are you going to say we shouldnt have HE?
Do you know what playing the Nashorn is like? Playing Bombers in ARB. Bombers are big, slow, and easy to kill for anyone who decides to target them. Their main defense is being so high up and far away that planes have to work a bit harder to get to them. The turrets aren’t much help except against truly incompetent pilots. Bombers can carry more bombs and bigger bombs, but since fighters and strikers can often carry enough bombs to destroy bases the bombers really arent the best choice tactically. Still, I like bombers, and do play them sometimes. Instead of complaining about how bad bombers have it, or demanding a Bombers Only mode, I adjust my expectations accordingly and accept the reality of the situation.
Bombers can defend against other air targets (mg turrets) while nashorn can’t do anything to air
A Nashorn can elevate its gun and shoot a plane that is coming right at it from the front. Given how ineffective MG turrets on bombers are a pilot basically has to be flying steady behind the bomber for them to do anything.
Therefore a Bomber and a Nashorn are equally effective against incompetent pilots.
If enemy air units allow it. While bomber can try to fly in a way that allows his turrets to be able to shoot at the Target, nashorn can’t do that.
Of course they are not.
Bomber has the same chance against a fighter like nashorn has against a tank in CQB.