500kg bombs are not as prevalent as enemy GF fire and the Jagdtiger can work to evade what 500kg bomb toting enemies there are. (Forcing misses with 500kg bombs is possible)
Not really. A competent GFs player who knows how to evade can throw off attackers with wise maneuvering.
An attacker has to get in close and/or low to succeed despite evasion and that limits their options later, subjecting to failure, enemy fire or both. It’s no cake walk for the attacker.
Until it’s demonstrated, it remains speculative. It certainly doesn’t sound practical.
You’ve said AFs inherently have the advantage many times…
To expect any aircraft to be able to wipe out any tank is incorrect–but that’s what you and others have implied previously.
An aircraft being an aircraft doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage.
A skilled GFs player can evade even a competent TnF simply by escaping the fatal blast radius (which is fairly simple to do). As long as you can repair, the attacker has failed–the bomb was wasted.
A lot of skill is involved with bombing, so it’s not fair to diminish the needs there: that requirement makes bombing easier to thwart than enemy GF fire. (Again, dodging the fatal bomb radius means success since merely surviving is a win for the GF unit.)
A wise GFs player can evade an attacker if they know how/when to stop/maneuver/smoke/etc.
GFs are only sitting ducks if they choose to be as such–I prefer to keep going in the competition rather than conceding.
“Can be done” =/= will happen
Can be done =/= practical
The practicality and certainty of what you suggest are definitely questionable, especially without demonstration.
The tool in question would be “an aircraft” period, not “an aircraft with ____.”
This is the crux of the issue.
As I said, if I bother with it that can be tried. However, I will remind you that polls (especially here) have their own set of vulnerabilities.
While a poll I produced would feature better organization and writing than the poll you cited, there are still outside factors like sampling and visibility that cannot be kept neutral. These are just some of the flaws that can damage the data’s quality.
I mean, it’s basic common sense is it not? If you have the SP, and the desire to spawn, you will do so in a vehicle within your SP range, provided you have vehicles to spawn. It’s not rocket science so I don’t see how these folks get so tripped up on it.
First spawning Helis, especially Kamovs - I hate them personally, so I typically spawn to counter them when fighting Russia. You shut those guys down quick enough and they become ODL players - Simple enough. Same applies to lower BRs, too. Especially since the aircraft have to get into SPAA range to use ordinance - Ordinance that has been artificially nerfed, mind you. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve dropped 2,000lbs of bombs on an IS-2 and it just shrugs it off, and don’t get me started on how awful HVARs are these days…
Anyways, rounding back to the original point - If you have the SP you’re free to spawn whatever you have in your line-up, or even not at all if that’s your pick. I have absolute disdain for troll squads, though, but that’s a different topic.
To me, the biggest irony of who you see screeching about ‘freedom to use SP’ is that it is so often self-described TO advocates who object to others’ SP spending.
While TO advocates insist they’re entitled to their own mode in the name of freedom, they often also say they want to arbitrarily restrict others’ freedom to use their earnings in the mode we already have.
I have never said that any aircraft, If I did then please cite me.
I didn’t.
Again using wrong tools is a player issue.
You can’t evade the fatal blast radius if bomb lands on Your vechicle and instantly blows up.
A proper air user will bomb You in such a way that You can’t evade a bomb landing on Your vechicle.
Not really.
Bombing is not a hard task considering You can use larger bombs and hitting the target with them is no hard as You have 3rd person view for it or even a bombing sight.
Again, doesn’t work against a proper air user.
They can be done, You can check that in game.
The tool is a proper aircraft, not any.
I have never said that any aircraft can archieve what I describe.
I have said that with air You can do things, I don’t take into consideration players not using their tools incorrectly.
You can’t evade a direct hit…yeah, but that assumes the hit is going to be direct and the timer is instant.
Both of those are often not the case. Near placement is more common and it frequently fails to deliver fatal blows (attacks survived are failures).
Bombing is harder than aiming via a GF gun sight…most aircraft do not have bombing sights of their own and aiming is done by eyesight (third person view is irrelevant because it’s standard in RB GFs).
When you factor in aerodynamic compression, terrain and enemy fire (only 3 of many, many hazards), bombing is no cake walk–it’s an involved activity. Anyone who talks like it isn’t a complex matter has no clue what they’re talking about or is just biased/confused.
It does–it just requires a good GFs driver. The attacking TnF has a lot more to deal with than the tanker and can be thrown off simply by well-timed braking/turning/smoking/etc.
Not everyone has what it takes to survive such attackers though…others just need more practice. Study up on the matter.
You’ve previously complained about people trying to use non-SPAA tanks against aircraft and complained about SPGs or whatever not downing enemy fighters, so…yeah. The answer is to accompany the SPGs with SPAAs/fighters!
If the air user is thrown off by evasion of defending fire or misses, it is a reprieve.
Incorrect, what I said is true even of highly skilled players.
Bombing is an involved activity–anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that is naïve about WT.
What I said is simply true. Only blindness caused by bias or confusion can lead a person astray on the matter, as it is self-evident that bombing carries more risks than running about in a tank.
You have the same risks as GFs (enemy fire and artillery) plus others (terrain, compression, etc.)
It is naive to suggest bombing is easy. Anyone who says that is exposing themselves as embarrassingly clueless about WT.
Earlier you were complaining about random GFs (not SPAAs) versus AFs, which refers to the same principle. (Previously SPGs have been mentioned)
Nearly 7 years later, it looks probable that TO advocates have helped sink their own cause.
I know the endless attitude we’ve seen displayed in their threads has soured many on TO.
Why are bushes something considered cheesy? Camouflage is a viable tactic in warfare. With as much as realism is stressed in this game, shouldn’t camouflage also be encouraged? Though I do agree they need to be more accessible to the general player, I think they’re part and parcel of the environment.
Averages are generally what is worth talking about in these matters.
Incorrect. I don’t have any more difficulty with attacks/defending against them than anyone else. I face roughly the same conditions as you and anyone else does. It’s par for the course.
That’s complaining about a poor selection (not necessarily “wrong”) for the job (anti-air work).
Access to bushes is a major issue. Some folks have far greater access to bushes due to grandfathering on limits and the paywall associated with them already causes its own issues.
While it is true camouflage exists, the implementatio of bushes as-is is unrealistic. (Bush covered tanks commonly operated hatches opened, not all buttoned up as we have here).
I disagree with your belief on how modern tanks can be camouflaged requiring open hatches. I was in the military for 10 years. I was around a lot of tanks. Camouflage is used to its maximum effectiveness my friend. Especially in warfare when lives are on the line, you do every single thing to give you every possible advantage. It’s just way of it.
Now with all that said. I agree with you but I also see it from the publisher’s point of view. They don’t charge for the game. Incentivizing every possible way to generate profit is the whole point for them. So I suppose I get it. It sucks, it’s kind of bullshit but it is what it is. Either it bothers you enough to pay up, or it doesn’t. One or the other.
Yes but camouflage in real life is far more versatile. as it can be mounted in realistic places. Supported in its own internal structure, or specialize in some other manner. A generic 3D model of the bush is a generic 3D model of a bush. In real life I can go out grab some bailing wire and some sticks and tie it on to the side of the tank wherever I wish. That’s if I have to make my own. Tanks usually have their own unique shaped camouflage packages. See previous posts for example.
It’s been a while since the change occurred (years, perhaps even 7 or 8), but originally bush purchasers could get something like 6 applications out of their bushes. Nowadays, there are limitations on this but AFAIK the older users who originally had this capability retained it while later folks lacked it.
Hence, the old player setup has been “grandfathered” as time has marched on.
I would not contend that open hatches are required (especially on modern vehicles); however, all the photos I have previously seen posted on the matter of bushes’ historical applications has shown tanks with open hatches.
Considering the limitations on optics, I could certainly see such conditions bringing along such tradeoffs as open hatches…but I don’t see any reason to go into hardcore discussion on that here.
To me, the access angle is the primary sticking point with bushes…unequal access inherently provokes an imbalance. Still, I do acknowledge your take is also entirely legitimate (“Gaijin server hamsters employees have to eat”).
It just strikes myself and others as cheesy–but not an actual violation of the game rules or anything like that.
