Jet Airfields Gaining more SPAA

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
21

Blatantly wrong.

The point of the airfield is to go rearm. SAM are there so people can do it without being strafed. To “reach safety” is just airfield camping and using the AA to give you an advantage or stop people from killing you entirely is unacceptable.

Just land and leave at that point. Camping is INEXCUSABLE.

…No, it’s genuinely difficult to lose SL in games.

This is a video game, sir.

I should not have to. Groundpounding is boring and there generally aren’t enough left to win a game at this stage, ESPECIALLY when it’s “Heavy Tank” bots you have to use bombs to kill.

Land and leave.

Unfortunately this won’t stop them from continuing to camp.

Most aircraft entirely lack this.

Please stop defending this behavior ingame. Airfield camping is frowned upon by everyone.

2 Likes
22

relative statement.
incapable to be completely false

in your opinion*.

yes, and we want that to stay the case.

never argued that it is okay to camp the airfield.

glad to see we both agree.

as i do when i see an unwinnable match.

im not going to argue about this again and again. drill it into your heads, getting killed = needing to repair = using SL. hence by transitive property, getting killed = using/losing SL

that tries to mimic reality

lifes not fair. WT is a PVPVE game, hence you can not ground pound if you want to but it is an option regardless

just gotta hurt the enemy so they have slightly less tickets that your team, auto win

depends

im not defending camping. im defending the use of the airfield as breathing room for a player in a bad situation to get back on his feet to either RESUME FIGHTING in a favourable stance or LEAVE the match.

i am part of that everyone

23

While I am loath to wade into this, seeing how this thread is going, I’ll add my two cents.

Having a player camping in safety, able to secure the win by running out the clock without reasonable counters is bad game design.

Similarly, being unable to land when nessesary without being strafed without counterplay is also bad game design.

Planes have limited fuel and ammo. Sometimes very limited. Outside of maybe the P47, no plane in the game carries enough ammunition to kill every single plane on the enemy team. And when you get to top tier with afterburners, no plane has (or really should have) enough fuel to loiter in the AO for long.

Thus, landing and rearming needs to be an option. And allowing planes to easily strafe the airfield needs to be prevented, thus AA.

However, AA also shouldn’t stop a team that’s vastly outnumbered to win because their ground strike planes were more effective early on.

I propose a simple solution. Firstly, once a plane has landed and repaired, give them an airspawn. Doesn’t need to be anything fancy, maybe 2-3km at cruising speed for whatever plane they have. This gives them enough energy to work with against anyone camping the airfield. This means players will feel they have slightly more of a chance, and be more willing to try to turn a game around.

Secondly, set up a timer. Maybe 1-2 minutes. After the start of the game, whenever all remaining active players on the team are within a given radius of the airfield, it’ll start to tick down. Once it hits zero, fairly significant ticket bleed kicks in. Fast enough to wipe out any reasonable ticket lead the losing team might have gained.

Once the player leaves the zone, it’ll start to tick back up again. This means they can’t just fly to the edge of the zone to reset the timer then fly back to the airfield.

Alternatively, instead of ticket bleed, have it turn off air defenses. This allows players to secure the kill on campers, which might help alliveiate toxicity a bit. However, this could lead to some goofy moments where if the final player(s) are hugging the border of the zone, the air defenses would keep switching on and off again, making attacks on them risky. This could be solved by making the zone noticably larger than what is covered by air defenses.

Finally, buff airfield defenses to be suicidally strong again. No more easily dodgable Rolands, and SPAA that can’t hit anything moving appropriately quickly. And no terrain blindspots. If you’re attacking someone with the airfield defenses active, you may or may not be able to get them, but you should be certain that you aren’t making it out in one piece.

2 Likes
24

this ^^^^
fully support

1 Like
25

Im not against switching the roland in adats or tanguska in high tiers

26

Just no. This just encourages the behavior that is the problem. It would be like how props are, you would see at least one to two campers per game.

I can agree with this and the timer but the defenses should not be infallible. What we had, which was two Rolands and 4-6 Veak-40s, was good enough to deter the average player. The system we had, while not great, was rewarding to players with the knowlage to counter it. However, it was equally rewarding to the camper if they had a lesser understanding of how the defences worked. The effort VS reward here was low on the camper’s side and high for the agressor.

no, this gives the player who is agressing a huge disadvantage. Think of it this way, for example lets use a common br when this happens, 8.7 for example.

The two planes that I see the most from this br is MiG-17 and F-86F-2. If the aggressor was in the sabre, they would be at sub 500m and around 950-1010Kph, plenty fast. The defender is in the MiG, they airspawn at 2.5km altitude and around lets say 850Kph, think of the amount of energy the Mig has over it. 2100 meters is a huge amount of energy for the Mig to have over the sabre. Not only that, at that speed the Mig can just climb to 4000 meters and stay up there. Making the game last even longer.

27

Right.
But circling AF or flying to low orbit is no activity, so you earn nothing.

28

That’s not how activity works.

Activity is simply f(time alive, score).

If you earned sufficient score for the time alive, you’ll get 80-92% activity no matter what you are doing. At ~12 minutes and 1500ish score, it caps around 97%ish

29

Just sounds like you want to be able to fly over an airfield and strafe anyone who may be reaming…there should be a danger to flying into gun range at low BR…should it snipe you from 8km…NO…should closing from 2km to 1km be high probability of DEATH…yes

Top tier airfields should have CIWS and 15km to 20km SAMs on them!

30

that is exactly what I want to be able to do, not being able to do so makes the airfield so safe that players are going to abuse it.

no, just no

31

And from the sounds of it…with Gaijin working on more advanced SAM systems…we will probably get the more advanced AA on airfields.

Sorry I do want a level of believability where you are protected by aa on the airfield…that’s not unreasonable or unrealistic to ask for or expect! This cramping at higher BRs only really happens because the match has turned into a 5 v 1. Just increase the speed that it will kick you back to hanger if someone’s gonna sit on it.

32

You quite literally have that right now, you are perfectly safe on the airfield… From the average player. experienced and knowledgeable players would just bonk you. That is the way it should be.

even in a 1v1 situation players will still camp the airfield, that’s a fact, especially below 10.7

I’m not asking for realism, I’ve long accepted that war thunder isn’t realistic in the slightest. What I’m asking for is for the airfields to offer some protection, like they did, and still do on some maps. AND allow a direct counter to passive players.

1 Like
33

I am to a degree…I’d also take out missile diamonds and enemy markers in arb…but that’s just me. ARB does need a PvPvE mode and not just the stale TDM.

34

then go play DCS or IL-2. I will say it again, realism is not good gameplay

that’s just sim at that point.

while I can agree that the TDM is kinda stale. ARB is technically PvPvE

What you’re asking for is the RBEC mode that gaijin has forgotten about for 6 years

1 Like
35

lol gtfo with this go play DCS BS…you could just go play WoWP to have your Arcade experience 🤣

Was never asking for Super SIM…just that Airfield AA should be believably dangerous 🤣 guess that’s WAY to much to expect in a Realistic game mode ppppffff

1 Like
36

I must say, war thunder RB is already arcady enough I don’t need to go to WoWP to have fun
almost everyone on this thread has tried to bring up “realism”. What we need isn’t realism what we need is good gameplay.

Must I say it again, it is believably dangerous for the average player. it deters at least 80% of players.

You need to let go of the foolish attraction to realism. You will not get realism in warthunder.

1 Like
37

I mean we should expect things in RB to be more realistic then AB…base AA is one of those things, and if it’s dangerous to 80% of player…are you saying you’re in that cohort? guess we can agree to disagree 🙂 glhf

1 Like
38

we have that, jet aifields in arcade have the old guns that being within like 6km is death.

no, I’m saying what we had was enough deterant to be safe from 80% of the player base, which I am not a part of. let’s make it more statistical for you, if you were base camping for ten games back to back, in at least two of those ten games you would die to someone who knows how to counter what you were doing.

No, I am in the top 7% of the playerbase all time, and in the top 2% monthly. Thank you.

1 Like
39

Not with the other changes listed, making it strange you pulled this out first as a standalone point. Why would anyone camp the base, regardless of how effective the airfield defenses are, if they’re either going to lose to ticket bleed or lose when the airfield defenses turn off?

The only reason I suggested this is to ensure players can’t just trvially bypass the air defenses and gank people when they’re unavoidably vulnerable.

First off, it was terrible. Acting like it’s some high IQ manuever to just come in low and fast then burst the runway from point blank range then diving back down is hilarious. Or just diving on it from above the airfield RADAR scope. Hell, appropriately fast planes like F-104s don’t even need to stay below the horizon, as long as they can stay kinda low and keep their speed up they’re effectively untouchable. Literally the only thing it could counter was players just flying in like it’s uncontested airspace.

Secondly, notice how these tactics are specifically good against people repair/refueling/rearming, and not people camping the airfield? A player that’s been grounded is helpless, but any camper with a working brainstem would just take off and fly a low altitude circuit around the airfield. That gives them enough energy to work with to avoid the initial high speed pass by the ganker. Once that happens, the ganker can either attempt to manuver and swing back around, getting themselves killed, or they can exifl and try again, at which point the camper will be ready for them.

Then of course there’s the classic, a person who takes off, flies into the map, makes a single pass, and the second they start losing the fight they immediately turn around and head into the airfield defenses for cover. None of the tactics that bypass air defenses work on them.

Firstly, why is the F-2 that low? If I knew the final enemy was repairing, and especially if I knew he was getting an airspawn, I’d zoom climb up and build some energy while I waited out the clock.

Even if I didn’t, the Mig-17 redlines at effectively the same speed as the F-2, and compresses plenty hard around that limit. Effectively, the altitude advantage doesn’t mean a thing when he can’t actually build up a speed advantage over the F-2, and if trying means that he’ll compress, overshoot, and give a free reversal on every attempt. The F-2 has more than enough time to equalize the energy states before engaging, or waiting for a mistake. And remember, this is based on a misplay where the F-2 didn’t take advantage of a free oppertunity to build up an altitude advantage of his own. The idea that someone can take a 2km airspawn and turn that into spaceclimbing, and the enemy team would be helpless to interevene is just hilarious to me.

I want the airspawn to be a fairly trivial amount of energy to match by an enemy team that knows someone is repairing and uses that time well. But enough that the player getting the airspawn feels like they stand something resembling a chance. As a counter example, how about a P-51 trundling off the runway, knowing there’s a BF-109 waiting for him just outside the airfield defense bubble at 4km altitude? Put that P-51 at 2km altitude with some energy in the tank, and while he’s at a disadvantage, he has something to work with.

2 Likes
40

I havent seen much airfield camping as of late. Forward airstrips should stay undefended for the risk to reward feeling as well as not punishing a player that’s heavily damaged a plane and was denied a finisher from unfair flak placements.

if the last guy is camping an airfield I tend to either suicide run them or just take a AGM65 to wack them on the floor, once I have brimstone on typhoon or tonka ill do the same with that.