If you could, how would you re-balance CAS in Ground Battles?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
325

I should hope CAS is unfair or what it the piont of having it? Nothing to admit. I would hope a BR4 tank is better than A BR 3 as well.

Sounds good, off topic and if that were to happen you certainly need CAS to balance it. BR is makes the game unbalanced or rather the failure to implement it correctly. Take CAS and you will notice the difference in BR even more.

All I see is high tier flyers complaining what a no go missile fest top tier flying is. So I can only assume you are wrong there or they are lying. I also hear top tier is a Helicopter hell. Dont know don’t play it.

So are you agreeing with me or not?

That is just plain English to me but here goes, sometimes in history we had battles with no planes. Battle of the Bulge for one. Germany rolled across the map because the Allies had no Air support due to fog. No CAS different outcome. Fog lifted Germans F***** again.

So WT imitating that with no CAS means a very deferent game play and that would be good or bad depending on how you look at it. You can sit unmolested in your Tiger 2 in the open on the down tier all game and smash what comes, and nobody can touch you. Great for the Tiger player not so great for the opposing team. For somebody to win in WT somebody has to lose.

Either way NO CAS GRB is just another WT tank game like Sim or Arcade is. I play CAS in GRB and I have played for a long time without it hating it.

I see both sides of the argument. I know GRB works without CAS but I also know it is a different game without it. Hope I explained that. I also don’t play above 7BR so I have nothing much to about CAS at that level.

Yes that is what I meant, and I have said it so many times on so many posts I just assume everybody knows my stance which is overstating my importance big time ,but I know so many people on here and what their views are.

We agree on much and maybe not on other things. That is cool.
Forums are tricky, communicating by writing is tricky.

I will cut through my own bullshit and try to simplify.

Introduce New TO GRB mode. Those who hate CAS have no more CAS

Leave old GRB as it is. No nerfing CAS, No Land spawn, just leave it. Those who like CAS or even rely on CAS are still fine to use it.

Everyone is happy. If those who called for TO GRB find it to be crap, then tough lol they wanted it. It is like deciding over Baseball or Football You can try to mix the games together or just play one or the other.

Maybe I am confusing you by trying to play devil’s advocate. I see both sides and if a TO mode came in, I would like to think I would play both.

2 Likes
326

Germany rolled across the map because the Allies had no Air support due to fog. No CAS different outcome. Fog lifted Germans F***** again.

The historical effect of CAS on ground units, before guided munitions were introduced, is highly questionable compared to what is shown in WT

unrealistic cas

1 Like
327

Well aware of the possible overstatement regarding the effectiveness of Allied CAS but the Battle of the Bulge was what it was historically, and bad weather also cancels out high level bombing which was undeniably effective. Fact is overall that Air support or air superiority was a war winner for the Allies and lack of air support was a war loser for Germany so CAS can’t be that ineffective overall. Air support is also spotting the movement of land units.

Bear in mind that losing a track could put a tank out of the war in certain circumstances in reality but not in the game.

Saying that, yes this is a game. Same with all those complaining about how Russian tanks are equal to Allied tanks in game, yes we have to have a game don’t we ? Can’t have one team fielding Pawns and another sending out only Queens.

1 Like
328

I’m pretty late to the party but I think a good way to balance CAS is to make it cheaper based on how many enemy SPAA are active.

Like if the enemy has 0 SPAA then it should cost 750 minimum for CAS and if they have like 5 SPAA active, then it should only cost like 300-400.

2 Likes
329

I’d raise the spawn cost for them a bit more. Or have spawn cost be reflective of the ordnance the plane have on them.

330

Something a bit like this?

331

That is only half of how Naval’s aircraft spawning works. You can still bring your own aircraft in RB to use. Plus, I bet it wouldn’t go over to well if you got a random tank in a certain br range when you spawn in for ground vehicles. Noone wants arcade’s spawn mechanics because it is all random nonesense. I mean, in Naval one of the bomber spawns in a level bomber with a torpedo that you can’t even launch because you have to lose all of your altitude and speed, otherwise the torpedo gets destroyed when you drop it. Keep arcadey randomness away from the RB modes, please.

332

So making it a random thing? If people know that no planes can spawn because of the increased cost due to the lack of SPAA, then noone will ever use SPAA. Balancing them off of actions of other players isn’t a fair way to balance them.

333

Yeah just realized that pretty big loophole :(

334

Yeah, pretty much!

335

I’m working on that now. Currently going through the rockets right now. Just have bombs for high tier jets, helos, torps, and guided munitions left before I can put out a copy for the community to go over and critique before I make the suggestion post.

1 Like
336

One thing I’d be interested in testing is a variant of the fighters first concept. The problem with fighters first is that they can cause absolute havoc on newly spawned open top vehicles on first spawn, but if you can remove that issue somehow, they are the perfect counter to CAS.

So what I would do is make it so that fighters can be used on first spawn, but they spawn on the airfield, so that you end up with a quasi-Air RB situation where if you decide to stay low and focus on ground targets, you’re giving up valuable altitude and energy, and might be vulnerable to the other side’s fighters.

If you decide to start climbing and prioritise positioning, then you’re obviously going to leave ground targets alone.

Then CAS planes can keep their air spawn and will have to rely on friendly fighters having achieved air superiority in order to have a clean run at ground targets (SPAAs notwithstanding). If the airspace is contested, then CAS will have a riskier time of it.

My hope is also that this would draw more skilled pilots from Air RB.

1 Like
337

You’ll soon find CAS is CAS. I dont really want any changes to CAS as I find the game OK as it is but I would still enjoy a game with no CAS.

IF CAS is fine, no issue, no concern and everybody likes it as the anti TO people keep saying then why all the calls to mess with CAS?

1 Like
338

An issue I see with this is that it would lead to one team basically getting air superiority at the beginning of the match. This usually means that said team would have a large advantage soon after a match starts.
CAS would honestly suffer from the air spawn because the air spawn is outside of the AF aa. One team would win the air battle then camp air spawn for the whole match.

1 Like
339

That’s one of my worries as well and why I would want to test it first to see what happens.

Snowballing is the norm in War Thunder it must be said. As it is now you already get the snowball in the air as well as ground too, because the team that won the first engagement is the one that also scored more SP to get into planes to begin with. The killstreak power up problem.

So you’d need to test not just if the issue exists, but also if it’s qualitatively different from the snowballing that already happens.

That is an issue as well but if I remember correctly from the road map, they’re bringing in a change about how the air spawn works in GRB, are they not? We’ll have to wait for the details on that one, but my understanding was that they wanted to make air-spawn-camping harder.

1 Like
340

Of course. I mean, the thread is asking how would you rebalance CAS, not would you like an additional TO mode or something like that.ù

If two modes existed, one with CAS and one without, I’d probably play both just to experience the different metas. But if we’re only discussing the CAS part of the equation, then rebalancing CAS does not mean nuking it into the ground, you know? I’m ok with the idea that it can be a part of the battle and influence its outcome. It just needs rebalancing I think. The most straightforward and obvious solution is to just raise SP costs but I would also like to see other solutions tinkered with to see what works.

Always remember the people who write on the forums are a super mega tiny minority of the actual playerbase, and people usually complain just about anything. A lot of the time people complain about pure nonsense.

I think CAS has issues, to be clear, but the proliferation of threads about it is not the proof that it has issues, is what I’m trying to say lol.

1 Like
341

Sort of but not really. They are just adding the marker to an enemy plane that is in the spawn zone. Wont prevent them from being there but it will at least warn you.

I agree. However, I believe that the air theatre is much faster than ground. Having air spawn first would basically be having half the battle happen then the ground battle happens.
One way of putting it would be like having half the map locked for a few minutes then unlocking the other half. The team that won the first side now has plenty of flanking spots to have a large advantage.

I would be down to test it though.

2 Likes
342

I think this is also something that would change massively with BRs, I will say. At the lower BRs, it takes quite a bit for many airfield-spawned fighters to climb to a good altitude. Obviously that is less true at the higher BRs.

In theory the ideal would be that you manage to time it so that fighters get over the tank battlefield at more or less the same time that the first CAS planes start spawning, which is usually two to three minutes into a match. And they can get there earlier if they stay low of course, but that comes with its own risks, just like in Air RB.

1 Like
343

The only solution (for fighters first) is a „player class” matchmaking, where battle consist of people playing certain role.

So You would need to change a game in its core.

Then people would complain about players skill and how getting one bad player means lose, so next would be skill based matchmaking and then people would argue that gaijin is giving them bad teams

2 Likes
344

A lot of these arguments already exist to be fair, mate. We read most of them on a daily basis on here.

I think there is some “player class matchmaking” in Air RB already, or am I wrong? And I’m pretty sure that WT has, while not exactly an SBMM with a normal ranked system, an engagement-optimised matchmaker that distributes players so that two teams have more or less the same total of “average position in the team” scores.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there are no issues, just that it’s worth giving it a try with a set up where the fighters can’t get to the tank battlefield too early. If testing it then shows that it’s a mess, no big deal, we move on. But even something as simple as doing, say, a 3-day test event, then gather data, would be very nice.

If I had more time I would set it up in the CDK and invite people to try it out in custom battles, but yeah :D

2 Likes