In AB you get tank RP from CAS, not in RB. Its actually very helpful grinding out stock tank mods tbh.
Yeah, Thanks for that ZandikarHaven, it also explains what even the Youtube channels are calling the “Rampant” use of aircraft in tank matches. One Youtuber I was watching only had 1 tank in his lineup, the rest of his lineup where all planes.
I’m a RL Private Pilot, was an ACM trainer in AirWarrior III and when that game shut down I followed my squad to Aces High, I have DCS and I’ve done a host of other air combat stuff. I’m even surrounded as I type with Warthog controllers, Pendular paddles, etc. I’ve done flight to death. I was in Armored Warfare with a lot of tanks, tried WoT for a while and then followed some friends here. I’m beginning to realize I’m just points for pilots to help them grind tanks and it saddens me.
This got me thinking…
If the use of planes in tank battles is a big help to grind out tank RP than it follows one needs WT flight skills to be successful in ground and not tank skills. And if that’s true, then tank ground combat skills that I’ve been told I need to grind out the tank tech tree to learn becomes irrelevant since air is the ideal grinding vehicle for tank RP.
So what is WT incentivizing here? Why would one not simply buy top tier, use it to get a top tier premium jet into tank battles and grind out the tech tree that way? Why am I trying to stick to tanks if tanks are just tank RP for pilots?
If the use of planes in tank battles is a big help to grind out tank RP
Its honestly mainly good for upgrading tanks that are absolutely horrible stock (i.e. they need aphe to be good or something)
And if that’s true, then tank ground combat skills that I’ve been told I need to grind out the tank tech tree to learn becomes irrelevant since air is the ideal grinding vehicle for tank RP.
Not really. Planes in Ground AB give tank RP, but not in air. Sorry if there was any confusion lol. (The way AB works is off a airstrike point system, very different to everything else.)
Some thoughts from an US main:
-
Maintain the performance of AA vehicles to keep them still in a defensive position when facing CAS vehicles, which have much higher SP. A “fair fight” between a 70~100 SP vehicle and a 500+ SP vehicle is not fair.
-
Instead, provide AA vehicles with unlimited respawn chances without the need for backups, and reduce the cost of repairing AA vehicles. Also, decrease the SL and RP gain for destroying AA vehicles.
-
Link the classification of planes to their armament. For example, if a fighter carries bombs larger than a certain mass, it should be classified as a strike aircraft/bomber. Currently, some CAS planes (F8F, P47, P51 etc.) are too easy to be the 2nd spawn as they are “fighters” and do not share the SP with strike aircraft.
-
If a plane has CCIP, increasing the SP cost of dumb bombs/rockets, as these bombs function more like semi-guided weapons on a CCIP platform.
-
Offer free anti-air vehicles such as drones/helis equipped with AAM or free fighters for players who have not yet progressed through the air tech tree, but with a higher SP and worse performance than their tech-tree alternatives.
-
Disable the crew for, say 5 mins after a crash with no damge being casued to the plane (like in Air RB, to discourage suicidal revenge bombing)
-
Sell premium AAs.
You brought some good points, though I am not quite sure what you meant by naval (I don’t play naval at all). Another thing that’d be great moving forward is to put the air base farther away. Helicopters should spawn at the main airfield currently in GRB (around 15 km or 20 km away from battlefield). Jets, especially at top tier where they can go mach 1.0 within 1 minute from taking off, should be spawning at an airfield farther than 15 km. Maybe 50 km, especially with AMRAAM expected to come this year. This allows for buffer time from when someone’s “enraged” and trying to “revenge kill” because now, there’s like what? 3-5 mins of time before the player can start looking for revenge. This change would be great for gameplay + realism at once (I don’t think they make air bases 30 km away from each other).
I would lower the br of every spaa that has only missiles (the ones that can only target planes) to 5.0, so that you can get rid of the 15 planes that continue killing you in your spawn.
To balance this, those spaa will cost as much spawn points as a heavy tank.

Ito90M 5.0 real!?!?!
That’s the crack cocaine take my friend.
Damn, gimme some of what hes on…
Unlimited AA won’t work. Many of them can already “penetrate” heavy tanks to death. The quad .50 pens all the early tanks way too well.
Then maybe an AA should be classified as tank destroyer or light tank (like IFVs) if it carries high-pen belt.
Nah, just add a strela or ozelot at 5.0 in every tech tree. This will also fill in any spaa gaps in the tech trees.
I have a question…
Wtf are you on rn, and can I have some
I’m just annoyed about enemy planes spawn killing me all the time.
Then maybe advocate for CAS SP rebalances and/or forced bomb fuzes, not putting missile SPAA at the same BR as the late zeros.
So what we see here is an RB battle I just finished. So I decided to explore the battle to see if there was any correlation between the use of planes and top scores. I’ve blacked out the names here on WT to protect the guilty but I didn’t block them out elsewhere. I’m focused only on ground kills by aircraft. Ground kills by ground vehicles for contrast.
On the blue side the top scorer is a level 100 player. The player got 2 kills in 2 ground vehicle, switched to a jet to get the remainder of his 15 kills pausing only to crash land at the airfield twice for repairs. He divided his air attack time between capture points and the spawn point.
10% kills = by ground Vehicle
90% kills = By Jet
On the red side the top player surprised me because they actually got the bulk of their kills in ground vehicles. In the air the player spent some time attacking the capture points. 2 of the air based ground kills were targets leaving or defending the spawn area. It was noteworthy to me that the this player was NOT level 100 but was 86.
60% kills = By ground vehicle
40% kills = by plane
On the red side again, the second top player, also a level 100 player, got 1 kill in his panther before dying and switching to aircraft for the balance of his kills. He divided his time between the capture point and the spawns area.
10% kills = By ground vehicle
90% kills = By bomber
Of special note, a level 100 player who died in his tank quickly, spent the remainder in a plane, crash landing numerous times for repairs and blowing his own airplane apart while bombing me. This would be laughable if it weren’t a high level player with 448K+ ground kills and a PVP ranking in the 1400s.
So this has changed my mind about killing tanks with planes. Clearly killing tanks by planes is far more effective then hunting around trying to kill them on the ground without being shot. Top scoring players are only using their tanks to get into the match before switching to planes to kill distracted tanks. Their even using planes to build their naval trees. I watched carefully and each and every player in my match received multiple awards and tank kill credits. Even TANKENSTIAN in his review video of the A-6E referred to tank kills as “Some free RP”.
It is impossible to learn to play better when I can’t even get out of the spawn area beyond the first tank.
So you have finally convinced me. Everyone should build a lineup of ground attack planes to grind a tank tree using dumb tank players for RP. Time to buy a top tier and say to heck with the grind.
Thanks.
So you have finally convinced me. Everyone should build a lineup of ground attack planes to grind a tank tree using dumb tank players for RP.
*air tree
Or move off spawn maybe… i just feel bad players blame anything on their terrible skills.
Pearl Clutch mode needs to be added as a safe space for ground only limiters.
How would that work? You just been shot down by one enemy who used a fighter for one minute, CAS stopped, your lineup would be free Points to an enemy with 1 brain cell.
Which is the problem.
