You are lying again now…
Prove me wrong then, can’t wait
I never agreed on it. You just decided to ignore part my argument and went with rest like its true.
You agreed that SPAA as paper can’t deal with planes said rock
And paper as SPAA can’t deal with rock (planes)
Scissors and paper in one team and rock in other can own the game. But here we are again you not understanding that you have team mates in Warthunder, not understanding kids game and cherrypicking parts from my argument. You are chronic liar without backbone.
SPAA cant deal with planes? Are you drunk?
I have explained You that yesterday, read first, then reply ;)
Out of arguments again. 2-0 for me. See you tomorrow.
I’m not out of arguments, I’m the one using plane and can prove everything I say and anyone can check it
There are often BR gaps and more SPAAs need to be added, but this is not the case at top tier. SPAAs can deal with top tier planes.
2 Likes
Loads of SPAAs can get outright outranged by CAS.
Please specify the BR ranges you’re talking about.
Most of them really. Open-top SPAA suffers the most
8.0 - 10.0 is pretty terrible.
Just saying “most of them” isn’t clear enough. Imo though, both you and Motorola’s complaints can be solved if SPAAs are spammed into the game for every tech tree where possible.
Also, I would increase the SP costs of Russian rockets on the Ka-50s.
The number of CAS aircrafts and helis in tech trees should not be lopsided compared to the number of SPAAs available.
Honestly, every day, there’s a new thread about this ‘issue’…
Like, come on moderators…
10.0 LAV-AD and most other IR-based SPAAs won’t have enough range to deal with Mi-24s that sit at 9.7.
This isn’t only about gaping holes in SPAA trees, it’s also the fact already added vehicles are often times dogshit.
I ran one of the biggest and it was over 50% for a no CAS option ,imagine that?
The issue is, you are merely finding the vocal minority because of how the forums are here… Content and players who don’t care, don’t come here.