like i said, it was an idea. If normal TO works, then hell yea.
1 Like
It’s not. There are ground units and sometimes ships in air battles.
No
Sure, let’s reduce the maps sizes so you can just launch missiles at each others spawns.
They also made an april fools event for modern day tanks and helis because they didn’t think they would get into that era. The modern day crowd is too big to ignore though, so they got into eras that they probably didn’t feel ready for. (And as we can tell by WTs current state, they definitely weren’t ready)
1 Like
If what you said here is true, then supporting TO should be a logical path you’d take as that’s just a really scummy, anti-player tactic that only focuses on money.
Here, buy our brokenly OP CAS premiums so you can feel better about yourself after getting repeatedly mauled by same things.
Mate, they are actively selling vehicles that are straight upgrades at the same BRs as their counterparts.
Anti-player tactics are just how Gaijin operates lol
Again, they probably wouldn’t buy vehicles that they don’t actually want, but as a business you still want to make those vehicles look as appealing as possible.
People may not be interested in buying certain things, but businesses are always interested in selling to people and try to find ways to get people to buy things that they do not actually want (or need)
We could always add almost harmless AI air units in TO that act as a free RP/SL, no issues with that.
You mean how tanks already can shoot spawn-to-spawn in GRB maps ?
If tanks can/have to deal with it, don’t see a reason why Air should be treated any differently.
Copying GRB style of gameplay to ARB would be extremely easy actually. It would be less fun for Air units, but tanks have to endure that in their mode anyways, so what’s the issue ?
So if you’re using “Gaijin said no to TO” as an argument against it, you should be, likewise, against modern stuff in the game as Gaijin once said no to that as well.
This just confirms Gaijin will go over their words if they want to, so using those words is a pretty moot argument.
Yes, one reason to be in favor of something that makes the game a bit less anti-player.
I agree but that business is trying to sell poeple stuff which they don’t wont but if people don’t want them and don’t enjoy gamemode they like which has those vehicles they wouldn’t have incentive to buy even premium time.
Strawmanning is all he is capable of. I’m surprised you’re still bothering with him lmao.
If they are “almost” harmless you might as well keep playable planes as well to let people intercept them. If they are entirely harmless, why even add them in the first place?
I know the AI targets in ARB are almost just decoration at this point, but that’s a result of people complaining about ticket drain and AI SPAAs killing them.
Ok bro
Why even have different gamemodes in the first place, am I right?
First, I am not against a ground-only mode, I am arguing that a ground-only mode won’t happen because of Gaijins vision for the game and their business tactics.
Second, yes, I was and still am against the modern stuff in WT.
The only difference between the Kisarazu and the regular JP AH-1S is literally just the paintjob.
Those AI planes should be perfect to keep AAs busy and give them some RP/SL.
Playable planes are out of the question as those are the sole reason for people wanting TO.
ARB is just a sick joke at this point that has been ruined by Gaijin and their everlasting need to please their petulant children, fighter jockeys. ARB basically turned strike aircraft into 2nd class citizens in their own mode, which is honestly sad and should be changed as soon as possible.
You still haven’t answered me what’s the issue there ?
Air units would actually have more means to defend themselves from that kind of gameplay than what tanks do.
So combined aspect is only fun outside of Air modes, how interesting is that ?
I’m sure fighter jockies would absolutely love getting cross-map sniped by AAs they can’t do anything about, as they’re out of reach and they’re the ones controlling the engagement.
Sure, those instagib AAs might cost a bit more SP but they’d delete half of your team’s planes in just a few seconds. To top it off, only planes that would be able to do anything about those pesky AAs should be strike ones, which in plenty of BRs would be, by design, nearly useless at their job…
This is what combined aspect would bring to ARB if you’d just copy Gaijin’s brilliant design that’s been plaguing GRB for years.
We’ve already established that Gaijin’s vision changes constantly and means jackshit.
Ah, well, as a Kisarazu owner let me tell you that having CMs doesn’t really do it many favors. Trying to throw it onto a list of P2W vehicles is frankly farsical and devalues your entire argument.
What the hell do you expect me to say?
Like, for real, where are you going with this?
I am trying to come up with a response, but I am having a real hard time right now. Do you need me to tell you again that I am not against a ground-only mode? Are you expecting me to tell you that the abomination you are painting there is a bad thing?
Air battles don’t feature playable ground vehicles, helis or ships because planes are supposed to be the main focus of the mode. Tanks and ships don’t fly, neither of them are involved in aerial warfare beyond being targets. Helis cannot keep up with planes, so they are left out of regular air battles.
Ground battles and naval battles are supposed to focus on ground warfare and naval warfare and in both of those kinds of warfare planes are heavily involved.
Gaijins vision hasn’t changed when it comes to this topic and that definitely means something. There would be a ground-only and naval-only mode already if their vision had changed.
If having CMs vs not having CMs wasn’t enough of a reason to list the Kisarazu as P2W, most of the other vehicles I have listed wouldn’t be worth listing either.
The point isn’t that these vehicles are a lot better than their free counterparts, the point is that they are straight upgrades. They don’t have meaningful trade-offs compared to their counterparts, yet they don’t get a higher BR than their counterparts despite being upgrades.
Yes, the main issue here is the BR system, but the better variant of a vehicle shouldn’t be the premium one. An identical or a worse variant should be the premium one.
As a sidenote, either both AH-1S’ should have countermeasures, or neither one of them should have them. They are the exact same vehicle after all.
They should just make a tank only mode and another with combined arms. No infantry tho. We don’t need war thunder to be modern enlisted
Agree with the post, at least the IRST and pantsir should be moved to 13.0.
That’s very much incorrect
Long range SAM sites or even isolated MANPADS operator are very much involved in theaters in which aerial units operate, just look at a certain conflict and observe how it goes…
On the contrary, CAS with your usual fixed or rotary wing manned aircraft is quite hard to observe today in ground operations. with drones and artillery now being the main threat
As for naval, there wasn’t much large scale naval operation in recent days, thankfully for all of us, but i suspect planes wouldn’t be as important as they were during WW2 :
- first because planes (especially fighter bombers produced in large quantities today) just don’t have enough range to go on a maritime theater alone, depending on where it is
- second because aircraft carriers are more vulnerable to guided torpedoes and missiles than they were back then
- third because the SAMs carried on your normal frigate or destroyer today are quite brutal and in large quantities.
Just like the aircraft carriers replaced battleships in WW2, guided torps and missiles are becoming more and more efficient to the point where planes are / will get used for niche missions only
Tanks are a main focus in GRB but they still aren’t the only type out there, which makes many concerned.
AAs definitely can be more than just targets if properly implemented, but not much can be expected from the cesspool mode.
It means nothing as they have changed their minds on multiple occasions, so saying their words are permanent is naive at least.
1 Like
That’s anti-aircraft warfare, a part of ground and naval warfare.
I have to concede that ground/naval warfare on its own doesn’t necessarily involve aircraft, but aircraft tend to play a major role in those types of warfare, even in todays warfare.
U(C)AVs are still aircraft, so even if the use of manned aircraft is getting more uncommon, aerial warfare still is a very big part of modern warfare. U(C)AVs might even play a bigger role than ground and naval warfare in general in the future.