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

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@warrior412

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.

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.

@warrior412

With bombs/rockets, CAS has the potential to attack most enemies

That’s not really true, especially with how much ammo planes have in their MGs.

@warrior412

but SPAAs have tangible advantages too in both cost

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.

@warrior412

and survivability (via GFs’ repairs)

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.

@warrior412

Combat capability/viability varies greatly with the vehicle, map and MM…it difficult to work anything more than that out without specifics.

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.

[Miragen]

[warrior412]

@SpeclistMain

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.

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.

@SpeclistMain

That’s not really true, especially with how much ammo planes have in their MGs.

The ammunition count only matters if it’s effective (can penetrate/wound). For many vehicles, that’s not possible with just internal weaponry.

@SpeclistMain

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.

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).

@SpeclistMain

This is not a scenario where you can just say “there needs to be more specifics” as a counterargument.

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.

[ZendikarHaven]

Aoeilaeiepae moment™

(At least for air)

[MajorFooFoo]

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.

[MajorFooFoo]

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.

[ULQ_LOVER]

@warrior412

As is commonly known and also proven in the video cited earlier, this is not true.

Let’s not kid ourselves: CnF is a gamble like anything else.

It was not proven in any video as it was not C&F tactic.

Please, read again how C&F tactic works.

@warrior412

The math is what determines the possibility in that case…it’s all about the tally when the kill feed comes in.

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.

@warrior412

Incorrect

Sorry but it is correct.

@warrior412

As an above average player myself, I can tell you considering all aspects of a match and the mechanics in it are important. It strikes me as silly that you’re contesting that.

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.

@warrior412

Excellent players consider all aspects…

Excellent players know what is the most effective vechicle and they use it without thinking about SP cost.

@warrior412

It’s not really a laughing matter

It is ;).

@warrior412

We had this sort of setup years ago with the Chronicles events and it didn’t generate any notable issues.

It really did, that is why it didn’t get implemented to normal GF RBs gameplay.

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

It was not proven in any video as it was not C&F tactic.

Please, read again how C&F tactic works.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

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.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

Sorry but it is correct.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

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 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.

@ULQ_LOVER

Excellent players know what is the most effective vechicle and they use it without thinking about SP cost.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

It is ;).

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

It really did, that is why it didn’t get implemented to normal GF RBs gameplay.

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.

[ULQ_LOVER]

@warrior412

The video showcased CnF failing.

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).

@warrior412

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 are the one not understanding about what the problem players having is.

@warrior412

Nope.

Yes, I have played with many excellent players that are far better than me or You.

@warrior412

Excellent players absolutely consider and keeps manages their SP situation as time goes on…

Nope as they don’t need to.

@warrior412

Incorrect, I was there and there were no meaningful issues

Correct, I was there and there were meaningful issues.

@warrior412

You must give us some contemporary proof of complaints if you wish to contest that…otherwise your allegations are baseless and thus misinformation. Sorry.

Same as Your point. Anyone can go back to old forum and see the topics about it.

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

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).

Incorrect, as I mentioned before:

@warrior412

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.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

You are the one not understanding about what the problem players having is.

Incorrect.

What people perceive as an issue doesn’t necessarily constitute an issue.

Their opinion =/= gospel

@ULQ_LOVER

Yes, I have played with many excellent players that are far better than me or You.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

Nope as they don’t need to.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

Correct, I was there and there were meaningful issues.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

Same as Your point. Anyone can go back to old forum and see the topics about it.

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…

[ULQ_LOVER]

@warrior412

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.

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.

@warrior412

Incorrect.

What people perceive as an issue doesn’t necessarily constitute an issue.

Their opinion =/= gospel

If enough people see something as issue in the game it is the issue.

@warrior412

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.

It is as meaningless as Your claim about what excellent player care about.

@warrior412

As you’d know

I know as I’m the one and I have played with many.

@warrior412

Nope

Yes.

@warrior412

The burden of proof is on you. You made the allegation and it’s up to you to prove it.

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.

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

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.

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…

@ULQ_LOVER

If enough people see something as issue in the game it is the issue.

Opinion =/= fact

Mob rule =/= correct

Facts matter…you cannot just trample on them because of bias, much as you might like to.

@ULQ_LOVER

It is as meaningless as Your claim about what excellent player care about.

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.

@ULQ_LOVER

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.

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.

[EddieVanHalo-live]

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?

[ULQ_LOVER]

As I have said multiple times, without a mode for pure tankers we will be getting changes no one is going to enjoy.

[EddieVanHalo-live]

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.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@warrior412

It’d be nothing more than a meta change and nobody would be compelled to research anything

Not buffing SPAA while making gun-only CAS easier to spawn is compelling people to grind the air tree.

@warrior412

The ammunition count only matters if it’s effective (can penetrate/wound). For many vehicles, that’s not possible with just internal weaponry.

For the majority of vehicles in the game (I’d wager) you can pen them with the average aircraft’s guns.

@warrior412

Aircraft can only repair at the airfield and they must survive the journey back to do

Except the aircraft get farther and farther from enemies, meanwhile ground vehicles have to stand still and make themselves an easier target.

@warrior412

At certain BRs (generally lower ones), SPAAs have the advantage

When do SPAA have the advantage? Like seriously when?

@warrior412

That’s why I decline to cast such a wide net and prefer specifics to discuss in detail.

When the following statement is true for every BR, you can cast such a wide net:

@SpeclistMain

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.

[Morvran]

@SpeclistMain

When do SPAA have the advantage? Like seriously when?

Sub 9/10 ish, typically for a “CAS” aircraft to attack, they’ll need to fly well within range of an SPAA system. With the only real exception being heavy bomber.

Whilst this does not guarantee the SPAA can stop something coming in low and fast. They do have a reasonable chance and if whatever is attacking is gun-stafing then they have to get a LOT closer. Maybe close enough for a 50 cal on the roof of a tank to deal with the threat.

At Top tier. It entirely depends on what what nation vs nation you are talking about. Pantsir and Tor-M1 can easily counter pretty much any aircraft, unless flying at insane alts, which is hard to reach vs them.

But CAS without a doubt holds the advantage vs basically any nation other than the soviets or China.

The only BR that I think CAS holds any meaningful, universal power for all natioins and vs all nations is around the 10.3 mark. With Jets like Jaguar Gr1A and A-6 almost impossible to counter without CAP aircraft.

Helis do shift that a bit, with some being a menace at the lower BRs, but do have some limitations in range, so often radar guided SPAA can hit them just about. So I somewhat consider the 9.0 helis about balanced.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Morvran

Sub 9/10 ish, typically for a “CAS” aircraft to attack, they’ll need to fly well within range of an SPAA system. With the only real exception being heavy bomber.

The issue is that being “within range” changes very little for gun SPAA, as it is still much, much harder for the SPAA to target a plane than the plane to target the SPAA. Tracers are more visible to CAS than the SPAA that fire them, CAS gets to correct their aim by seeing their bullets hit the ground, CAS has more maneuverability, and planes have much smaller cross-sections (or put another way, are not very compact targets).

@Morvran

They do have a reasonable chance and if whatever is attacking is gun-stafing then they have to get a LOT closer. Maybe close enough for a 50 cal on the roof of a tank to deal with the threat.

I do hit CAS with roof-mounted 0.50 cals, but they don’t do much damage (where firepower is yet another thing CAS has above SPAA).

@Morvran

Pantsir

Yeah, the Pantsir is pretty much the only reason I said “almost” in my above comments lol.

[Morvran]

Right. Which to me is more that SPAA could do with some buffs/tweaks and maybe its time for some of them to move down in BR (those that arent overly oppressive) rather than directly “nerfing” CAS.

Though I do think its kinda impossible to judge properly at the moment with so many gaps in SPAA. Like if I play 7.0 Britian. Of course im gunna struggle vs CAS with only the 5.3 Skink. It should.

[Cookies_Juicebox]

This is how I would re-balance CAS in Ground Battles if I was in charge of it. Personally, I don’t mind the CAS as it gives me as a SPAA/SAM user something to do lol Though I’ll admit it’s going out of hand, especially at top tier when the Pantsir-S1 is not on your side.

This is why I suggest an increase in SP and stop making kill assists lowering the SP cost for CAS aircrafts. 6 Kill assists gets them this low which causes a huge amount of CAS spam.

• Hard lock SP Cost to 600 to 1k SP depending on ordinance and more AP rounds on the belt
• Removing the SP reduction for CAS from assists
• SP should be shared to all aircrafts including helis (If my Tornado dies, the Gripen shouldn’t remain low and cost 308 SP, instead it should cost more if I want to use an aircraft again…one of the big reasons why there so much CAS spam)
• Removing Kill Cam or shortening it by not showing where the shell came from or not showing where the enemy is at the end of the kill cam.
• Add needed SAM systems and support vehicles for the SAM to counter global CAS as its becoming difficult the more GBU/ASM/AGM weaponry keeps getting added for more nations/aircrafts.

These 2 jets have a fully loaded GBU loadout with default ammo on the belt. Tornado has potential of 6+ ground kills if used correctly, Gripen has potential of 4+ ground kills if used correctly. Other jets like F-16s possibly 7+ kills etc…doing global CAS.

Spoiler

All it needs are some SP rework for CAS spam to be lowered. Firepower won’t be nerfed or need to be touched as they can still perform as they are. CAS mains can still do their thing, but there won’t be as many revenge kamikaze bombing as there is now.