However, some planes do not even suspect that a missile has been hijacked and launched at them.
Of course not, the huge smoke trail doesn’t reveal the missile.
2 Likes
Because ground vehicles know perhaps?
And? If you know what to expect you wouldn’t be flying straight.
1 Like
So maybe anti-aircraft guns should cost more because they can’t be detected by radar and you don’t always know if a missile is being fired at your plane?
Absolutely not, one main advantage of the spaa is stealth, deciding to not use the radar or use ircm instead.
And at the same time one of the most important challenges for cas users is to locate and destroy spaa.
1 Like
Why then is there not a higher price for the stealth of anti-aircraft guns?
Because then CAS would be too strong and to difficult to destroy.
1 Like
Why would anyone spawn an SPAA given it’s useless versus tanks and for taking the objectives?
It’s given a lower cost to offset its helplessness and lack of match impact outside of countering CAS.
While planes cannot capture zones, they can easily delete high-threat players from the enemy team without them having any counterplay. Say in one instance my panther A got shot out by a T29. I hopped into my bf109 F4 as I hate Abandoned Town and I needed wins for battlepass. Saw friendly fighting aforementioned T29, dropped sc250 on top of it and the 7.0 T29 was deleted by a BR 4.0 plane.
Contrast this with my cent mk3 getting taken out, grabbing my Bosvark and once the skies are clear of planes - I got literally no gameplay to engage in as the Bosvark is useless vs anything except for super light IFVs and other SPAAs. It also cannot really capture zones because it drives like a pregnant cow drunk on moonshine so you not be able to disengage any enemy threat.
Meanwhile the aforementioned Bf109 can return to base, grab another SC250 and delete another top tier enemy in the match, strafe open-tops to its heart’s content and keep the skies clear of CAS.
Replace bf109 with yak9k for even more effective/unfair matchups.
I wonder why spawning the bf109 costs more SP than the Bosvark.
5 Likes
Then the question arises. Why, when you take an aircraft with air-to-air missiles, does it cost so much more than an anti-aircraft gun? Although in fact it can only shoot down air targets, which may not exist.
Pure CAP aircraft should have their SP cost reduced, sure.
Problem does arise from the power of some guns making them highly performant at strafing all the same (while those same belts are needed for air-to-air combat due to faster muzzle velocity), but that’s limited to only a few specific cases.
1 Like
The only way I could see the SP cost of SPAA being increase is because a lot of them are great against tanks. That could be fixed quite easily though by nerfing penetrative power across the board but increase velocity. Personally I’ve had far greater luck taking out planes with tanks than I have SPAAs.
This is also a problem. Anti-aircraft guns are cheap, but some of them kill vehicles no worse than infantry fighting vehicles.
Nerfing pen is a no-no, though variable SPAA costs based on the belt carried is something I heavily favor.
(Ex. ZSU 57-2 with only HE would be 70, w/AP it would be same as a med tank.)
No.
and kugelblitz, and Gepard, and ZSU-23/37, and Btr 152, and 2S6, and Strela, and Ostwind 2, and Wirbelwind, and the Phong Kong
This has to be bait. SPAA rewards are already low, spading SPAA is difficult if it has 0 anti-tank properties and now we want to up the cost of it, making it even less appealing to play, especially for some trees like the US. Yeah how about no.
I’ll also add that anti-aircraft guns get crates, which allows anti-aircraft guns not to go to points at all. Aircraft do not get a reload point in the sky. And the flight time is also a kind of nerf for aviation. This knocks them out of the fight for a while.
Лёха, хватит xyuнёй заниматься, иди работай