Its amazing how when someone complains about how broken the game is a legion of supporters leap to its defence yet here we have another huge list of recommendations to supposedly make this unbroken amazing game work.No wonder we are all confused in this realm of endless fixes.
3 Likes
It is not a rare occurence, getting killed by CAS only by their guns is what happens to me about 50% of the time I die to CAS.
What you suggest in itself is more theoretical, it relies on: other clean fighters being in the air, them being near enough to engage the gun-only CAS, them paying attention to engage said CAS - all the while the ground vehicles (outside of SPAA) still have little to no way to counter them.
Again, you are ignoring the actual combat capabilities of SPAA versus CAS. Generally, CAS can counter any ground vehicle whereas SPAA on the whole can only counter planes (or technically light vehicles). Ground vehicles need a good way to counter CAS and need to be able to do so easily, otherwise CAS will reign supreme. As for more specifics:
- CAS travel much faster, move in three dimensions, and generally have a shape much harder to hit, making for difficult targeting
- CAS can easily see how to adjust their guns through seeing their rounds hit the ground, SPAA cannot as they have little to no reference (especially when in the gunner’s sight) when attempting to correct errors in their aim
- CAS generally have more firepower than SPAA at their BR, meaning not only is it harder to hit them, but SPAA will have a much higher time to kill than CAS
Again, you are not addressing the massive combat capability deficit SPAAs have against CAS.
Edit: To add to the above sentence, I don’t care if a quad-0.50 cal SPAA costs 0 SP to spawn, if it’s put at top tier against 20km ATGMs it will not be able to perform well.
2 Likes
I seldom die to CAS at all, nevermind to clean fighters as you describe.
If Fighters First were implemented as proposed, one would expect both sides to deploy some amount of their own air or anti-air units to address the other side’s. While this may take a few days to iron out, it’d become just another team mixture matter in time.
With bombs/rockets, CAS has the potential to attack most enemies…though even here the matter of effective range/penetration still matters. Gun/cannon fire is even more limited.
To your other points, much of what you say is valid and some can even be flatly called ‘correct’–but SPAAs have tangible advantages too in both cost and survivability (via GFs’ repairs)
While CAS used skillfully can certainly be effective, I wouldn’t go so far as to imply it is unstoppable or anything like that.
Combat capability/viability varies greatly with the vehicle, map and MM…it difficult to work anything more than that out without specifics.
However, I will say that I don’t recommend an M16 for work at top tier…its potential there is ‘limited’ at best.
1 Like
1 Like
Gameplay should not be decided on hope, it should be decided on actual capabilities. Additionally, the change would be bad for gameplay as people would need to grind both their nation’s ground and air trees to be helpful to their team.
That’s not really true, especially with how much ammo planes have in their MGs.
Cost is not a factor that matters if you cannot shoot down planes, and once you die (because your SPAA is massively less capable of doing its job than a plane can do its own) you can’t use that crew anymore. That means you would need to dedicate more crew slots to SPAA, which both can cost actual money and/or means you need to use less-capable SPAA at a higher BR because your first was taken out.
Planes can also repair, only SPAA are immobile and defenseless when repairing (so CAS-food). Additionally, SPAA are much easier to kill than planes due to most being open-topped, having no armor, or having very light armor.
Things like turret traverse, the damage an SPAA does (and therefore its time to kill), the massive speed and maneuverability difference between SPAA and CAS, and the massive difference in ease of aim correction are factors constant to the vehicles. When looking at SPAA and CAS at the same BR (currently), a plane will have a quicker time to kill, be more maneuverable, be able to respond to and aim at enemies quicker, and have an easier time correct their aim than an SPAA.
This is not a scenario where you can just say “there needs to be more specifics” as a counterargument.
1 Like
It’d be nothing more than a meta change and nobody would be compelled to research anything…it’d just be opening up the skies to those who wish to pursue them.
We had this sort of setup years ago with the Chronicles events and it didn’t generate any notable issues.
The ammunition count only matters if it’s effective (can penetrate/wound). For many vehicles, that’s not possible with just internal weaponry.
Aircraft can only repair at the airfield and they must survive the journey back to do…SPAAs can repair wherever they are provided they have survived.
That’s the difference I was emphasizing, though its common to all GFs (not just SPAAs).
At certain BRs (generally lower ones), SPAAs have the advantage whereas higher up (a la the M42’s turf) the conditions can swing in the opposite direction.
That’s why I decline to cast such a wide net and prefer specifics to discuss in detail.
1 Like
Aoeilaeiepae moment™
(At least for air)
There’s a lot you can do to balance CAS, but the simplest, bare minimum changes Gaijin can make right now with the most impact IMO are:
-Double all aircraft and ordnance costs. Stops people bringing out fully loaded bombers after just one or two kills, mostly, and better punishes aircraft that’re shot down without contributing to the team (Basically, suicide bombers won’t have the SP to respawn). This also means no more first-spawn helicopters with ATGMs.
-Limit the number of aircraft allowed at once, per team, to 3 or 4 depending on team sizes. Stops SPAA, and tanks in general, from being completely overwhelmed and stops you occasionally losing games because 2/3 of the team thought planes were more useful than capping the objectives.
-Remove all air spawns. Stops revenge-bombers reaching your position ~30 seconds after spawning, actually giving you a faint chance to reposition or ideally discouraging cheap revenge bombs in the first place. Also serves as a nerf to doomsday bombers like the Pe-8 and Lancaster.
2 Likes
Aircraft can only repair at the airfield and they must survive the journey back to do…SPAAs can repair wherever they are provided they have survived.
Sure, but at least aircraft are completely immune to SPAA whilst at the airfield, can still move when crippled and don’t have to unlock the ability to repair in the first place. A single bomb near-miss or stray cannon round, as mentioned, can leave an SPAA completely immobile and/or defenceless against not just CAS but tanks too, and it’s nigh impossible on most maps for SPAA to survive a trip to the cap point if they don’t have Parts unlocked or just need to rearm/replenish crew.
Then there’s the permanent and potentially severe effects of crew damage SPAA still have to worry about.
It was not proven in any video as it was not C&F tactic.
Please, read again how C&F tactic works.
Sorry but You won’t win a game with just numbers. Otherwise You would always use -1 B.R. vechicle (compared to battle B.R.) as it costs less SP to spawn in or the one costing the most as after first ground vechicle spawn costs are going to double.
Sorry but it is correct.
No excellent player cares about what costs what SP, they just play the game as before they die, they have enough SP to spawn in anything they want.
Excellent players know what is the most effective vechicle and they use it without thinking about SP cost.
It is ;).
It really did, that is why it didn’t get implemented to normal GF RBs gameplay.
The video showcased CnF failing. An attempt to pursue access to an aircraft via a cap with the lineup’s solitary GFs unit was made…and often it failed. I guess you never watched the video. Spookston had even done as you specified with a variety of vehicles, not just a single sort.
I suppose you are confused, but I will tell you CnF is not something inherently restricted to reserve vehicles: it’s capturing a point with a vehicle and then flying with an aircraft thereafter…that’s it. Using reserve vehicles only is just your personal setup–it’s not a rule.
No, you’re just not grasping the concepts that were being discussed there, as the numbers do indeed spell out what a “win” can be and how it can be pursued.
You need to reread–you’re obviously a bit confused.
Nope. Sorry, but this seems to have all gone over your head.
If you want, you may PM me and I’ll try to explain it in simpler terms for you.
Excellent players absolutely consider and keeps manages their SP situation as time goes on…it’s all a part of their decision-making during matches.
Because GF SP costs are so low, it rarely poses a critical issue to ignore this…but that’s still a naive approach to playing. Better players keep a fuller view of the situation.
An experienced, excellent player will be manage their SP and consider their options near instantly and routinely…but this is still doing those things. That sort of deep consideration and dynamic thinking is why those players do well: generally, they are simply smarter than their opponents.
I am amazed that this is all so new to you…with as much playtime as you have, I had expected you’d understand all of this.
It isn’t…ignoring good practices like conscious SP management is not wise at all.
I encourage you to abandon such naivete…you’ll do better when you embrace these smarter ways of playing. It’s not even hard to keep track of/manage SP…just do it.
Incorrect, I was there and there were no meaningful issues; it was no different than a normal RB GFs match really. The main aggravation people had with those events was the arbitrary restrictions on vehicle choice (due to quantity limits), not aircraft or their presence.
You must give us some contemporary proof of complaints if you wish to contest that…otherwise your allegations are baseless and thus misinformation. Sorry.
1 Like
Please point out at what time reserve vechicle was used to cap zones (because this is what C&F is, not just wanting to cap a zone by any ground vechicle).
You are the one not understanding about what the problem players having is.
Yes, I have played with many excellent players that are far better than me or You.
Nope as they don’t need to.
Correct, I was there and there were meaningful issues.
Same as Your point. Anyone can go back to old forum and see the topics about it.
Incorrect, as I mentioned before:
Your own preferred way is not the way–there are many avenues.
If you use a GFs vehicle to capture a point then fly afterward, it’s CnF…it’s that simple.
Incorrect.
What people perceive as an issue doesn’t necessarily constitute an issue.
Their opinion =/= gospel
Nice claim…but it really has no basis because there are no names and there are many different ways to excellence (which ones are you referring to?).
That’s nice bravado…but it’s meaningless here.
As you’d know if you’re read before replying, I already talked about this…it’s simply a good practice because it makes a good player even better by being more aware and cognizant of conditions. It’s advanced…not everything bats on that level.
You’ve gotta read before replying…you keep bloating the thread by missing these things.
Nope–but if it did happen, you should be able to provide proof.
Get back to us when you have it, otherwise don’t bloat the thread with unproven hearsay.
The burden of proof is on you. You made the allegation and it’s up to you to prove it.
I don’t want to be mean, but don’t bloat the thread litigating the matter…either prove what you said with supporting evidence or drop if as unsubstantiated. Sorry…
It is not a proper C&F tactic, otherwise any capping of the zone could be seen as such.
Thanks for proving yet again, that You can’t grasp how proper C&F works.
If enough people see something as issue in the game it is the issue.
It is as meaningless as Your claim about what excellent player care about.
I know as I’m the one and I have played with many.
Yes.
You made the allegation that there was no problem with it, if it really weren’t then we would see it already implemented in game. The solid proof is that it is not implemented.
Incorrect. I have shown I fully understand CnF by accurately describing it…there’s no rule that reserve vehicles be used.
You are confusing your own preferences with gospel…which is both arrogant (sorry) and incorrect. Your methods are not the benchmark, they are just your choices.
“Cap-n-Fly” is the term, not “Cap-n-Fly with a reserve vehicle” or anything else like that. You’ve got to think outside the box but also just read things plainly too.
You’re missing out on a lot…
Opinion =/= fact
Mob rule =/= correct
Facts matter…you cannot just trample on them because of bias, much as you might like to.
Incorrect…I’m afraid you just got confused again don’t understand what I was saying.
If you’d like me to explain it to you again in simpler terms, use PM–don’t bloat the thread.
Lmao…that’s not how implementation works at all.
Event conditions are not necessarily implemented into the game at all…you don’t see ponies or the worms of the April Fools events in RB GFs do you?
You’re confused about the difference between events’ mechanics, standard gameplay and how often they mesh…you need to study WT history some more.
Beyond that:
I described that there was no major upheaval nor controversy with what happened in an event series with slightly altered mechanics. (Having been there, I know it’s history…to dispute this, you’d need proof.)
You contest this…but have adamantly and repeatedly refused to defend your claim with any sort of evidence. If things were as you said, evidence should be easy to find…yet you refuse. The burden of proof is of you, but you say you won’t provide it. That suggests there is none.
Either bring some proof for your claims or concede the matter–you’re bloating the thread.
Like everyone else who plays GRB I find CAS annoying at times but that was offset by the fact I could get a plane and do the same to others.
Now I am finding that pleasure is greatly reduced by the constant nerfing of planes in GRB. Distance to the airfields getting greater it seems and SP costs rising just mean I get all the negatives of CAS without the positives.
I would rather Gaijin just had a separate game with CAS and without so those who accept CAS can enjoy it as it was a year or two ago. Those who hate it, don’t fly or just want a break from it can have that.
If CAS isn’t a broken element of the game, then why the need for all the nerving and updating? You don’t mend what isn’t broken do you?
1 Like
As I have said multiple times, without a mode for pure tankers we will be getting changes no one is going to enjoy.
1 Like
You are right. How or even why would you balance CAS with ground units? The whole idea of CAS is one about advantage, this childish notion of balance between planes and tanks is laughable, it’s like seeking balance between nukes and slingshots.
All that is happening is that the game is constantly changing and who is to say when its actually right and “Balanced” .Was it balanced last year or the year before? Last week but not now? it’s a silly notion when you think about it but it seems neither the player base or the game makers think about it.
Same with BR, up and down it goes, never correct, never settling, just disrupting.
1 Like
Not buffing SPAA while making gun-only CAS easier to spawn is compelling people to grind the air tree.
For the majority of vehicles in the game (I’d wager) you can pen them with the average aircraft’s guns.
Except the aircraft get farther and farther from enemies, meanwhile ground vehicles have to stand still and make themselves an easier target.
When do SPAA have the advantage? Like seriously when?
When the following statement is true for every BR, you can cast such a wide net: