This is not a ant-cas topic but a discussion on realism
You obviously have not read it fully or taken any of it in
The problem is most people do not know how to use Anti Air, they stick to the spawn, never pushing up, nor understand that you need to lead your shots and cease-fire when a target is farther than you think they are.
So what it leads to is forum users making ∞ levels of the same discussion topic. Not understanding that the devs, and volunteers will not listen to them. Since its nothing more than a rant post with frustration and not critical thinking and then you have some who make a topic post that is disguised as critical thinking but it is nothing more than a 1 cm layer of wax.
Oh really?
So let us see how that statment holds with Your own account stats… ;)
1 Like
Which stats show the effectiveness of SPAA?
Overall or against the air?
Because he said about overall AA gameplay.
@SinisterIsRandom was speaking of effective use of SPAA. In the context and judging by the rest of his post it is obvious that he means the role of fighting aircraft.
2 Likes
I will respond to this quip this way:
That belief can be your opinion in general, but in certain scenarios it is flatly bogus. As an overall stance, I’d describe it as faulty at best…you’d be better off with a “___ are more realistic than ___ in ___ regards” take than something that tries to go wholesale like this.
Look at it this way: aircraft have to return to the airfield for repairs while a tank with Parts unlocked can conceivably get a new engine block, breech and/or barrel while waiting on the doorstep of the enemy base (just give 'em a little time!)
Which is more realistic there? Putting aside video game logic that we all put up with for play practicality, which side there takes more liberties?
I’m open to talking about a new approach to realism, but let’s not kid ourselves: plenty of realism liberties are taken with GFs.
1 Like
So You compare kills against the air to overall deaths.
Why overall deaths? Well if what he is talking about is a good tactic then he wouldn’t die to tanks. If he dies to tanks then this tactic is not good.
Its not a quip.
Its obvious aircraft have to return to a maintenance bay for repair, i dont think i need to say why unless you know something i dont. My statment about realistic probably points more towards realism and that many battles throughout history have air support, but in WT you need to die to get it. I would like air cover for ground at same sp cost as tanks and helicopters
1 Like
Fair enough–the meaning I was intending there was not that you were joking but that I was only commenting on that excerpt.
“Excerpt” is the proper term…so consider it that.
This sounds very similar (though perhaps not identical) to the Fighters First idea I’ve previously remarked on.
FF would not allow for ordnance for first spawn aircraft, but it would allow for defensive fighters (and helicopters without SP-tied weaponry) as well as having new despawn mechanics and even SP rebates included with its implementation.
I believe ordinance needs to be earned via SP, be it from shoting down enemy aircrsft or strafing tanks or even tank v tank. Idk about the rebate idea seems a bit complicated, i think we have had this conversation before.
Try again 😜
In that case his tactic also is not good, if there are no enemies that spawn aircraft at all and it is also not good if he makes enemies miss their approach and waste their ordinance.
1 Like
If enemy misses the ordinance that is not because he made something but rather enemy lacking skill to drop it.
We can’t say that just because an SPAA is shooting from from 2km distance and enemy misses his bombs due to not being able to drop it properly, that SPAA made an impact.
If the SPAA fire is the cause for evasive maneuvers, which in turn result in a missed drop, then the SPAA was the cause, yes. Of course, the pilot could have assessed the situation, circled around and start another attempt, which could be successful or also end in failure.
1 Like
But again, the airplane is still flying and can rearm or attack a target with his mgs outside of SPAA range
Not all machine guns are able to damage tanks and if he goes to rearm, he is practically out of the match for a few minutes.
1 Like
Open-top vechicles don’t require much of a pen and You can always spot for the team.
Rearming doesn’t take that much time (all depends on the map).
So still, that is not an effective way to deal with air.
Open top’s would be safer with air cover
With how random teams are made, You don’t know if You are going to be in a team that will use the air in the first place.