Severe damage is practically the same thing.
That’d make 20mm even more OP. no thanks.
Oh yeah? How so.
In RB ground vehicles are considered destroyed and can’t fire etc., when the crew is reduced to 1 crewmember. So should a tank still be able to fire or move even after being “destroyed”?
Geese and ganders?
Disabling any weapons after being judged “destroyed” would be a useful nerf to CAS in GRB. Oh and fix the f’in helicopters while you’re at it…
Most aircraft operate with 1 or can operate with just one human inside.
Most ground vehicles can not.
The strv 103 is an outlier because it does not get counted as destroyed unless all crew are dead. (It can operate fully with just one crewman)
For real
That is not true. 1 person can drive a tank or load, aim, and then fire the gun. They just can’t do that at the same time. So should a tank that registers as destroyed by you, be able to turn and shoot you as you drive past?
That the equivalent of allowing aircraft to continue to operate, when in reality a pilot would at best be trying to maintain controlled flight with a damaged aircraft, and more likely, be trying to get out of it.
you have answered your own question.
please think about it before you argue…
1 person can fly a whole aircraft singlehandedly at full combat capacity.
1 person can not operate a tank singlehandedly at full combat capacity.
as i said. The Strv is allowed to remain alive because 1 crewman can operate the entire vehicle at full combat capacity simultaneously being driver and gunner.
looks back into japanese history…
some would like to differ.
point being. imposing your opinion in the face of facts is an uphill battle.
you would do well to just concede.
1 Like
We are not talking about “full combat capacity”. We are talking about a shot up airplane that is literally falling out of the sky.
Even in the Japanese it was an exception not the rule until the intentional Kamakazi were created. YOU need to look into history.
LOL. Nice projection. That isn’t how that works.
The only uphill here are the CAS mains threatened with having their revenge kills taken away from them.
The main problem is imho the view of gaijin, that aircraft and pilot are somehow disconnected. There are actual irl events which support this view.
Gaijin stated multiple times, that this is part of their understanding of “realism” and that they won’t change their view on this topic
If i see this thread as a whole, just a few guys have realized than an aircraft can be inoperable to various degrees and declared as “dead” whilst the pilot is still alive and able to use it’s weapon systems. Same with gunners in bombers in a burning bomber going down.
Imho tanks and aircraft are not comparable - aircraft are dead as soon as they hit the ground, whilst a tank never leaves the ground (with some exceptions, but they fight only on the ground).
That is the main reason why you have to kill all crew members within a tank in order to get a kill, whilst you get rewarded with a delayed kill if you shoot the wing off a B-17 - even if all 10 crew members are alive, as soon as the plane crashes = kill.
The main difference is that there are outside fires no delayed kills in ground warfare - whilst a large chunk of kills of air kills were granted with a delay, so when the aircraft hits the ground.
If i see these 3 comments as a whole, a short reminder:
- The severe damage mechanic was aimed to support clueless tankers and pilots which were killed by “dead” (=black tag) aircraft.
- Previous kill conditions were changed to “severe damage” - so in order to get a kill now, you need to kill the pilot or shoot his tail off.
- The new mechanic is not preventing “kill stealing” - it is the opposite as previously dead planes are now still “alive” for a longer time period.
- Arguing that something is “fixed” is simply denying reality. A previous clean kill (= 100% reward) is no 80% reward if a team mate finishes your target.
- The new mechanic as a whole has at a closer look just downsides for players - just check the feedback thread.
The main issue of kill allocation for aircraft is still the same:
Gaijin is unable to determine the conditions of a delayed kill of an aircraft - so in case an enemy is so severely damaged that he is unable to make it back to his airfield in order to repair the damage.
a shot up airplane that, just so happens, to have its weapons functional.
if you want higher fidelity aircraft models (with weapon systems modeled), then fight for that.
otherwise, dont complain and ask for auto disabling of a feature that irl may or may not have been destroyed.
have them modeled. then dont complain if and when the helicopter or aircraft is falling out the sky but the modeled systems havent been damaged.
because then. they have the capability to use them.
let them.
ground vehicles repair at max 1 minute damage that a heavy machine factory would take at least two days…
talk about realism
1 Like
That is exactly what this would do. Are you not paying attention or are you being intentionally obtuse to defend your illogical (and biased) position?
Beyond game balance mechanics. This would more accurately model how aircraft are damaged and how human pilots behave under stress. Right now you are free to be a brave badass because you are sitting safe in your gaming chair and not in a shaking burning mess hurtling towards the ground with seconds to decide to bail or ride it out.
You say that as if you are the one who suggested higher fidelity models.
Fact of the matter is, in the conversation between you and me, I’m the one who suggested this change. I have no problem with such an update to the games vehicle models.
What I do have a problem with, is you suggesting a hard coded ‘adjustment’ that would turn an otherwise 50/50 scenario into a 100% in your (ground vehicles) favour.
Rn its a relative 50/50, but I proposed making it a true 50/50.
You proposed a true 100% in favour of ground vehicles.
Bias my ass…
If you really want a good anti helicopter weapon…
Check this:
EPHAG
Okay but this is fun
Words mean things.
Not really.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been obliterated by SU27 players who fire off a R73 right after I’ve hosed them down with a vulcan.
it already has the same HE filler as 40mm for 0 reason, making guns destroyable would just cripple you even harder in the 15% chance scenario that 20mm doesn’t just 1-shot your wing.
We used to have this but tankers didnt like it. It was annoying for both parties.
For the attacker, it ment they had to shot them again and would make the tank unkillable if they were hull down.
For the attacked, it ment that you had to deal with constantly switching your crew between gunner/driver positions. Most people just bailed out when they only had one crew left.
I have another idea on this issue.
Basically, it is OK to leave the attack function after the aircraft is destroyed, but instead give some bonus for the pilot’s survival.
For example, if the pilot is able to eject from the aircraft alive, the cost of repairs is reduced to some extent.
(Of course, they must not be knocked to the ground at high speed after escaping, they must literally be allowed to survive.)
This way, the player will be forced to make a choice: stay in the aircraft and fight back, or keep the pilot alive.
As a result, counterattacks from the wreckage turn into risks.
As a side effect, it can improve the quality of gameplay by giving meaning to an operation that currently has little meaning: escape.