A rock/paper/scissor counter system is pretty ubiquitous in PvP game design. To keep your game from feeling unfair or from gameplay being dominated by one strategy/ability it’s common to have a circular system of counters for that. CAS reliably strong positioning that would otherwise be a massive uphill battle for an offense to break likely resulting in a lot of loss if it even succeeds in the first place. SPAA exists to protect against CAS but (for the most part) is nearly worthless in a defensive position so it would get pretty easily taken out by an offensive push or in higher BRs if the CAS swaps to SEAD instead.
Removing CAS as an element encourages static gameplay that will turn most of your playerbase away as one of the biggest counters to strong defensive positions is CAS. The issue is the counter for CAS doesn’t have enough incentive for players to want to use it as opposed to just toughing it out and hoping they don’t get bombed.
Are there bad SPAA? Sure. Does that mean most SPAA is bad? No. Most SPAA is effective at either taking down or at minimum deterring a strike. The issue is SPAA in most cases /is/ more difficult to be effective in. This also further inflames the issue of there not being enough incentive to play SPAA.
Like my original point said, Gaijin has stated multiple times this is not happening. It’s a nonstarter. That’s been discussed since ground battles became a thing. Instead it’s more productive to focus on what makes this mechanic less of a PITA to play against.
Figured what out? You didn’t even make a point. You made a bad faith argument that made no sense then said “ya did it!”
Not when air is able to deal with all other things eaisly.
People were happy with advanced gamemode where air was less present. I belive that without it nothing would change when it comes to ground battles and it would encourage people to learn the game rather than relying on crutches such as air.
In most cases air can destroy SPAA from outside of SPAA effective range.
Gaijin has said that they don’t understand why people want it.
Not to mention about many things gaijin said is not happening and are already present in the Game.
I addressed this in the paragraph you took this quote out of.
Less, but not none. What I had proposed has the same effect. You’ll deal with less CAS by way of CAS having to contend with fighters kitted out for A2A engagements which CAS is inherently at a disadvantage for with the extra load. You see this on the rare occasion someone decides to take out a plane kitted for pure A2A and watch them wipe the floor with CAS players. I still fail to see how it is inherently a crutch. A lot of players use it as a crutch but the mechanic is not in and of itself inherently a crutch.
That is a skill issue. If you sit out in the open with no cover then yeah you’re gonna get obliterated. You need to employ cover just as you would with any other vehicle. Make the angle difficult, force them into a low energy state or a disadvantageous position. Cooperate with other team members for crossing fields of fire.
Gaijin and communication is pretty infamously terrible, but at the same time I’d imagine they could see what that would turn into. They’re also probably looking at the number of people who jump into planes in ground battles, a lot of which are the same people complaining about CAS, and are getting reasonably confused.
Your response to ULQ argument about CAS being crutch to situations that require thinking was
Effectively saying “its done IRL this way and therefore okay for it to be in game”
realism alone is not a sufficient justification for a game mechanic. We have many deliberate departures from reality in WT, including respawns, simplified logistics, instant repairs, and many other abstractions.
Since you already agreed the game is not a full realism simulator, the fact that CAS is used to destroy entrenched positions in real warfare does not, by itself, establish that the mode must include CAS.
Why is it that you people always start yelling “bad faith argument” whenever it suits without explaining why is it bad faith lmao.
That is not what I said. I used it as an example since these vehicles are closely modeled (to a degree) as their real life counterparts it follows that some real life tactics will transfer over to the game. The example was demonstrating that this is a tactic that is used IRL specifically to break strong positions, and it takes on a very similar role in the game. It was not a statement of “it’s realistic therefor it’s correct.” While it is true that the mode doesn’t /need/ specifically CAS to fill this role, something does. Just saying “just push smart lol” is not an answer. That’s like telling a healer to just hit their shots when getting jumped by a DPS in other games.
That would be because that really doesn’t need any explanation. You submitted an argument in bad faith. It didn’t make any logical sense without the explanation you provided just now and didn’t really serve to make any real point. It was a poorly constructed argument without the explanation you gave, simple as.
Used to be the case with hulldown bmpt basically. Besides that, is being able to fire from where enemy cant respond only criteria for crutch vehicle? I think being significally better in almost every way than your opponent vehicle fits “crutch” term as well.
Technically any vehicle can do this. By this definition a tank exploiting the bad gun depression found on most USSR tanks is a crutch against USSR tanks
Side note, so glad they moved the BMPT up in BR. It’s still an absolutely annoying little demon to fight but it at least can be fought in the BR it’s in now.
That would be like me saying youre into kids in all the wrong ways and then just stating it is a fact without further elaboration nor proof.
Im not saying you are, just giving an example where your logic of “i dont have to explain my accusation” fails ;)
So either explain why you think that argument was made in bad faith or drop the accusation.
Reductio ad absurdum is a thing.
Why are you assuming that a strong defensive position necessarily requires hard counter such as CAS to overcome instead of tactics?
if a position is genuinely difficult to attack, why it shouldnt require superior positioning, coordination, and tactics to overcome?
Your analogy with healer getting jumped by DPS fails because WT tanks arent healers. WT equivalent of healer would be armored recovery vehicle. Guess what, it would lose to MBT in direct fight all the same.
You wouldnt give the healer an instant “nuke the DPS option with no counterplay on DPS part” button.
And we dont have ARVs in game at all, tanks can repair themselves.
What is actually happening is that DPS/Tank is engaging another DPS/Tank.
But working within your comparison further, healer is intentionally designed to lose direct engagements with DPS because that is not his role.
sending healer to do a job of a tank or DPS would actually be stupid tactics, but tactics nonetheless.
What would actually happen in game with such roles is youd draw the aggro with tank, then support the tank with healer and let DPS do the job. You know, tactics.
You were posing a gotcha question that is based in a misunderstanding of the premise. Either I answer yes, which is a ridiculous answer obviously, or I answer no because it’s a game and who would do that. It ultimately serves no purpose than to make the opposing argument look bad by forcing a false dichotomy.
Convenient you nabbed the quote and omitted the explanation to that statement.
Again, not what I’m saying. It’s a counter. A strong defensive position can be eliminated using an offensive push, however you’re playing to the strengths of the offensive position and fighting an uphill battle by doing so. Counter play in game design isn’t about “You can’t break strategy X using strategy Y, you need strategy Z” it’s “Strategy X has and advantage over strategy Y making it more difficult for strategy Y to succeed, but strategy Z counters strategy X with its own tradeoffs”
As an aside, have you met this player base? It’s a miracle they understand what a flank is. To answer more seriously however, this is because it generates stagnation in gameplay. Most people in a match are playing to earn Lions and progress in the tech tree, getting kills and staying alive is the best way to do this so most of your player base is not going to be keen on taking an uphill battle that stands a good chance of them getting obliterated immediately and having nothing to show for it. So what is more likely to happen is people taking up their own position hoping the enemy gets bored/stupid enough to move. Your match turns into people basically just staring at eachother.
This is why you have an element like CAS. This forces defensive positions to not become too static otherwise there’s a bomb with your name etched on it coming for you. Now you have to consider changing positions, ducking for cover when a plane is coming for an attack run, or other such tactics to mitigate the attack, which grants opportunities for an offense that now stands a good chance of breaking the line and allowing for actual movement in the game.
The issue with this current setup however is that due to lack of incentives to play SPAA and A2A equipped planes CAS is effectively missing its counter in a lot of situations. The weakness of CAS is its limited ammunition and attack runs leaving it exposed with a vehicle that doesn’t take much to bring down. Actually providing incentives for SPAA and A2A to be brought in would resolve the issue as now CAS players have to actually deal with their counters coming out in roles that aren’t purely reactive. Strategy W, to fit in with what I was talking about with counters earlier.
It would fail if you apply it literally. It’s a metaphor, the meaning being you’re asking someone to just deal with a disadvantageous fight head on instead of countering the strategy being used.
The raw irony of this statement is amazing. Again this is why I used the IRL example in the first place. Fighting from a disadvantageous position when you don’t have to is almost always a bad idea unless there is no other option. To borrow from the end of your post, “You know, tactics.”
Insisting that tactics are the answer while ignoring tactics is an interesting position to take for sure.
youre judging my response based on a clarification you provided later, not on what you originally wrote.
I addressed the argument as you worded it.
I made reductio ad absurdum argument to test whether his stated principle could consistently justify mechanics.
Once you clarified your actual position, the discussion moved on.
Because your explanation establishes why you disagree with my interpretation of your argument, but it does not establish bad faith.
So what tradeoffs does CAS bring to the interaction of tank and CAS plane?
Because as it is now, it is simply most efficient way to deal with strong position without any reasonable tradeoff.
fact that some players refuse to adapt is not an argument to introducing a mechanic that bypasses the need for adaptation entirely.
If players refuses to move, flank, or coordinate, that should be a vulnerability they accept, not something game automatically corrects by CAS mechanic.
defensive position is not inherently a problem.
Holding advantageous terrain and forcing the enemy to dislodge you is part of the objective-based gameplay.
CAS entirely bypasses this interaction between tanks and terrain, lowering already poor skill of the playerbase because why would they use tactics when they can just lawndart with a P-47?
So no, CAS isnt neccesary solution for static gameplay.id go as far to say it makes the issue if static gameplay worse as it removes the learning process from players that need it most.
CAS invalidates any positioning and kills that were achieved through ground combat.
Good player can make no mistake in their first spawn, win their engagement, and still be removed by an aircraft they had no realistic ability to counter.
I play spaa without any improved incentive, it does not help since CAS still holds massive advantage. Take a look at top tier. I either spawn multivehicle SPAA and i cant deal with LDIRCM helis, or i spawn a SACLOS spaa and i cant deal with KH38MT slingers. I have to dance around the conditions CAS dictates.
Anyway issue persists - why must CAS be the prefered counter to strong position instead of superior tactics?
Youre still trying to sneak in the healer metaphor (deal with a disadvantageous fight head on) even if you just said it would fail only if you apply it literally in the same paragraph.
Youre insisting that any position disadvantage tank player encounter must be met with hard counter alternative that bypasses the interaction between tanks and terrain entirely because
…why?
Why we must resign on demanding for people to use their brains instead of magical counter?
I think youre misunderstanding my point, im not arguing that players should intentionally take disadvantageous fights.
avoiding disadvantageous engagements is exactly what tactics are for.
My point is that preventing yourself from ending up in that situation is itself a tactical decision.
player choosing a poor position or failing to adapt should not automatically require a separate hard counter that bypasses the advantage their opponent earned. disadvantage created by superior play does not automatically require a hard counter, otherwise every advantage in a PvP game would become a design problem.
Should’ve been clear originally, my judgement was the question made 0 sense to what it was responding to. My clarification enforced my assumption correct. Accept you misunderstood the point and move on.
Your scope is too narrow
Addressed further down
Refusing to adapt to your player base is how you make a dead game. Like I said countless times at this point CAS is not the only answer. It’s also not “automatically corrected” you still have to play the game, it’s not an “I win” button.
The mechanic is not introduced for that, it’s introduced for what is literally the marketing headliner of the game, that it being combined arms. Too reductionist, again.
We would save a lot of time if you’d actually read what I say… I didn’t say it was a problem, I said it’s a strategy with weaknesses and strengths. Also, no, it does not bypass it completely, if anything I’d argue it adds extra depth. The plane still has to spot you before it can even kamikaze strike, you learn to move after you fire, something you should already be doing anyways. If you’re not in the same spot they have to go looking for you, if you know where to hide they won’t find you, or they’ll move on to easier prey.
Yes, welcome to a team based game. This is true of literally any team based game. You can make no mistakes and still lose due to something out of your control. Even if you magic wand all the planes out of the sky you can still get removed by elements out of your control like a rush the rest of your team failed to stop and you have no realistic way of countering on your own. This is a really weird argument to make in this game.
Yeah I do too, that’s why there needs to be stronger incentives as the majority of players in the game don’t care because of the risk of doing nothing if you choose the wrong time to spawn, and when you do you might not earn enough to make it worth it. More people actually encouraged to play SPAA/A2A allows for more of a spread of coverage, that way if you don’t have the equipment to handle a threat your team mate does.
Because that’s how counters work? Nothing is actively stopping you from doing it the way you want now, or in my proposal. You can still do that, nobody is stopping you.
I’m not “sneaking” in anything, I’m explaining what I meant. That is a disadvantageous fight, calling it a disadvantageous fight doesn’t = healer. What were you even trying to say here?
Must? No. As said before, you’re free to do it that way if you want. This is game design, you make options available to the players, not take away agency. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that I’m saying it “must” be done this way. Also for the why, again, Warthunder is marketed as a combined arms game with realistic mechanics. This is how the game is designed, not my decision.
Because some people just wanna make things go boom, and that’s a pretty large portion of your target audience. Not everyone wants to put a huge amount of thought into the game they’re playing, and IMO that’s not something that should be harshly punished. Games are meant to be enjoyed, and if you can get more people to enjoy them, that’s even better. Now that being said I do believe that “using their brains” should be rewarded, but punishing someone that just wants to chill just ain’t it.
Annnnd if said defensive position is categorically denying the objective? You don’t really have many other options but to take that fight. Not everyone playing this game is going to be a grandmaster at chess, you can’t realistically expect people to get punished hard without recourse for something like this and think that’s going to go well. Warthunder is not marketed as a strategy/tactical game. It’s marketed as a “RAHHH FIGHT TANKS PLANES AND BOATS” game.
In a well designed PvP game every advantage has an answer. The other player did earn it, their reward is getting the kill. If they want to keep earning it they should maybe keep in mind they fired a big cannon and a lot of people know where they are now and should probably move.
A lot of people love to say this, but you’re not totally 100% at the mercy of the CAS player in a tank a lot of the times. Sitting out in an open field, not moving when you fire, not making adequate use of cover are all failures I see commonly when someone decides to start railing on in the chat about CAS.
Just like an offensive push against a defensive position is a disadvantaged fight, so is a defensive position against CAS. Rock, paper, scissors. The biggest issue is CAS needs its counter properly fixed.
There is no position on the map that if someone wants to shot at You, You can’t shot at him back.
Let us use Jagdpanther. When You are playing against ground units, everytime You die, You can learn something from it. For example when You die from a side, You learn that first it has not so much amor and second that at this map there can be a player that can shot You from „x” spot. Normal person will learn from their mistake and next time he will try to not get shot on the side and watch this position for any enemies.
Now when facing air, if an enemy pilot is not just stupid You can’t do anything. What You learn from it? There is no weakspots, there is no spot to shot at etc. The only thing to learn is that no matter what would You do, nothing would change. You have to die first without being able to do anything.
That is the difference. Against ground there is always something You can do with what You are using and against air You have to die in order to be able to fight back.
Not to mention that with being able to spawn an air unit why jagdpanther user would even think about learning from its mistakes? He can always spawn a plane with bombs/rockets and kill a person that have killed him no matter what that player is using and where he is positioned. So what is a point of learning the game if You can always use air to deal with anything?
This sounds more like an issue with map design and less that CAS is actually needed.
But then again, a decent chunk of the playerbase likes to think a good defensive position is unbreakable when it takes one round to gimp a defender for upwards of 30 seconds (barrel/breach sniping).
Yeah, Gaijin also said they wouldn’t sell top tier premiums ever but here we are with Jean Bart at 8.3 - which is top tier for France.
And at one point that they weren’t going to go past destroyers. We’re at ww2 capital ships.
In the great words of Hugh Laurie as Gregory House: “Everybody Lies.”
That’s the main reason people don’t do it, if there’s not enough popup rewards with sizeable RP and SL people don’t bother even if it results in a victory of the match and therefore increased rewards
I personally do it because it’s very fun to shoot down tunnel visioned attackers and helis
This is a natural consequence of trying to take a realistic approach to armored warfare, this is what vehicles like this excel at, and this is what the concept of combined arms was made to deal with. Gaijin is certainly not winning any awards for map design, but there’s only so much map design can do to mitigate this.
This is true, this is why I said providing options is the way to go. Not that you “need” to use CAS. You’d think with how many times I’ve said this people would understand that. Providing multiple solutions to the problem is more engaging for your player base.
Look into why the lies exist, selling premiums. Gaijin has been making a mint selling broken premium CAS planes that are nearly useless in AirRB, they’re not canning CAS any time soon.
So every map should be perfectly symetrical with no complicated geometry for players to use to get an advantage over others? There’s no other way to stop all camping with just map design.