With regards to the issue with base bombing in air battles, here’s an idea, MAKE FIGHTERS REWARDS BETTER. The only reason people bomb bases or use rockets on them is because its the most consistent and effective way to grind a tech tree, the grind has become so annoying and tediously long that instead of playing fighters and fighting other aircraft in an aircraft they got more often than not purely for grinding, they would rather bore themselves to death attacking bases rather than aircraft. You’ve created an environment where the grind is so bad, that even if people find the gameplay boring, they’d still rather do it. Everyone knows that managing the economy is almost purely to make people give in and spend money on premiums, but you don’t actually make the game any fun. I cant remember the last time in the past 2+ years of this game that I actually had fun. That purely stems from the grind. I played this game cause I love tanks and aircraft and wanted to relax after work, but because of the grind its like a second job. Fix the gameplay, if you want people to actually play your game in the long term, make reward players for fighting other players more so than bases, the problem as I have stated numerous times is the fact that when it comes to grinding out an air tech tree, its more effective to bomb and rocket bases or ground targets than shoot down other aircraft, and its more prevalent than ever at higher tiers, I know there is the JU288 problem but people have grown tired of that after so long, and the same thing will happen at top tier. At mid to low tiers people actually dogfight and I personally have way more fun than the missile spam base rushing environment of top tier aircraft. Fix the gameplay, please stop hurting this game and the player base, ya’ll have genuinely been doing so good recently and listening to the player; the ones that actually matter. I love this game, so please don’t kill it with stupid decisions that do nothing but hurt the players.
The entire point that I am making is the strange lack of efficiency with SP that the US has at a Meta level which only impacts them of all nations; that second aircraft spawn from the same pool has an increased SP cost, which makes that reactive spawn less likely to occur which limits their flexibility where other nations wouldn’t have an issue spawning their reaction loadout.
Say for example you do manage to scrape the SP together to spawn in a CAS loadout with the F-4E, and proceed to get intercepted due to poor Flight Characteristics so have to dump the ordnance to lighten the airframe that means time and opportunity to have an impacted is wasted returning to rearm, or just simply have bad luck since HEAT based F&F ordnance is a crapshoot.
Or take that CAP loadout from the start them have little impact if there was an opportunity due to lacking ordnance to take full advantage presented, also the F-4E’s arbitrary lack of the AN/ASX-1 (TISEO) and Pulse only AN/APQ-120 radar limits the usefulness of Sparrows, comparatively the AIM-9Js aren’t much to write home about either really limits its potential at low altitude.
The F-4J has the opposite problem where it’s great as a CAP fighter but very poor at A2G in comparison due to being effectively stuck with only Laydown ordnance, and only access to the gunpod on Centerline.
There are a multitude of half-steps that could / should exist but don’t (e.g. B-57G Tropic Moon III, OV-10D, OV-1, A-37, F-102 / F-106, F-4B / -4D etc. GPHE warheads for 2.75 / 5" rockets, etc.)
As per;
Here is Developers answer
Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.
Therefore, this issue is considered resolved
I don’t think you understand. They had it working properly in game but adjusted it for game balance purposes.
From
Unlike the seeker of the Maverick missiles, the Kh-29T missile and the KAB-500kr guided bomb are equipped with a TV-correlation seeker, the main feature of which is the difference in the visual image of the captured area and the rest of the background. This means that such seeker will not be able to lock on single ground targets such as a tank, but they will be able to capture any point on the land surface.
This should be paired with a reduction to lock on range.
And of course the “warhead” it does less damage than a warhead that is almost 5x smaller by weight (5" ATAP), and has less penetration than those 10x smaller,(AGM-114B) even though both should be very much questioned as to their accuracy.
Because we have sufficient evidence to prove that the ordnance should be modeled differently, Also the US lineups lacking flexibility at the Meta level can only have negative flow on impacts on win rate among other things, and since these changes impact support vehicles BRs they impact the options that are available and thus are relevant.
The point is that the ordnance’s characteristics are erroneous, and so after being corrected; should be appropriately balanced by either BR decreases or appropriately performant ordnance being provided pending the impact of the change.
Its not that what is present being wrong that annoys me the most, its what is missing that wouldn’t change that much on the high end, but provide options and so that the response can be best tailored to the situation at hand.
How does Gaijin always fuck up BR changes???!
Yeah, cool, separate BR for planes in ground battles, but what about finally increase needed points to spawn plane in ground RB? Don’t take me wrong, I love playing CAS and very enjoying bully idiotproof unbalanced things like Finnish premium KV or overspeeded wheeled rats with it, but it’s pretty dumb to have enough points to spawn plane just after cap point with AA truck and then J out in start of battle…
The player wants to increase the revenue of shooting down planes, not decrease the revenue of bombing. Why do you so subtly misunderstand what the player is really thinking? In short, lower returns are unacceptable.
I still have to disagree with the raising of the A-6E TRAM as it is. It compresses horribly and you will more often than not end up in the effective range of SPAAs while waiting for your GBU to finally arrive on target. In the case of an uptier to 10.7 (which is extremely common in my experience) you are going to be facing the Tunguska which is easily able to shoot me down while I wait for a GBU to hit. (if I even get close enough to drop one at all)
I have also been knocked out by Strelas at distances exceeding 5km a number of times meaning it is at least. Additionally putting it to 10.7 means inevitably fighting the pantsir which you cannot in good faith argue is a fair match up at it will literally clap it out of the sky before I can even locate it.
Not to mention the lack of a lineup at 10.7 (meaning 11.0 would be the only choice making it even more redundant) Simply claiming that you will add something to help it at a future date (namely not the same time as the BR change) is not good enough.
They face lots of flareless aircraft in downtiers. They do not always get downtiers. In uptiers It’s the opposite. They’re not competitive against aircraft with flares since they rely heavily on their missiles.
Moving stuff down solves one problem but creates another. It’s not a good idea without BR decompression. That’s what we need.
They are not meant to be effective, nor competitive in an A2A role against dedicated fighters. The missiles are for self defense and not to club flare-less planes with them.
And the first step towards decompression is giving the planes from 9.0 to 10.0 a rest from the all aspect slingers.
All planes are less effective in uptiers
They are not meant to be effective, nor competitive in an A2A role against dedicated fighters . The missiles are for self defense.
None of this matters for war thunder because it’s not a simulation game. Air battles is mainly an A2A mode so all aircraft need to be competitive in the role they are played.
If you want to make strike aircraft reduntant for the sake of realism, there needs to be a mode where attacking ground targets is attractive and rewarding. Air RB is not currently since the ground targets are all located in the middle meaning you’re incredibly exposed and vulnerable to fighters that will see you an an easy kill. It’s also incredibly boring and repetitive to destroy pillboxes, AAA, and artillery game after game. Enduring confrontation is a good solution but it’s incredibly rare right know. It needs to become the new normal for these aircraft to have a purpose and to be enjoyable.
Isn’t this game supposed to be realistic? Wasn’t this the whole premise of this game? If I want an arcade gamestyle I go and play AirArcade or World of Warplanes. But not War Thunder.
Ground RB, just saying. Since you all don’t seem to want a tank only mode.
Making whole BR brackets compressed as hell, just so 5 non fighter aircraft are effective in fighter roles. If you argue in that way, we would have to lower a lot more vehicles and compressing everything way more. Only solution.
First then anything elase i well love to 6.0 prop plane and 6.3 6.7 not fighting jet i mean like spitfire mk 24 fighting jet is not enjoyable just because a couple player are good with dosent make good to be at 7.0 jet need to be separated frome prop plane justblike you guys did with apdf shell for tank. and the battles rating need be decompres lole way extended to at least 14.0 to start with this great vhance to dod that even do if take longer take out the timer on air battles and ai finish the gane for you. Disable the air field aa if only one player left and he been there for wile it be a relly good chnage.and another’s fact if you extend the battles rating to at leat 14.0 there alot plane and jet they well benefit frome inste of lowering them donw now they can go up because just like the mig 15 bis at 8.3 it a joke …and when come to gun in the plane even after real shudder fix they still relly bad wjen hitting a target also the mig 19 after burn 🔥 still look relly cartoons like the after burn look relly bad.but withball this see this a good change and good chance to decompres the br for at alot plane as well balanced them and i still think the 104 for the Americans it way to low of br that thing if player know what he doin it pretty much untouchable at 9.3 so plase gajing make way higher like at least 10.0 make this changes 👍 good for everyone not only few player .and fuel slider need to be where you can decreased the fue load i thing alot prop well help them to be little lighter i mean good have fuel sliders but what good it is if canot reduce fuel the you dont wants like come on with fanly get one with cant getblower fuel for some plane they are alredy relly bad beging with dont mean randomly rampage about all this but all im sayings are posive changes can be implemented with new br.
This is not something exclusive to the US tech tree. This happens with every aircraft when carrying ordinance. That is the nature of the game.
Also I cannot take seriously the fact that you are complaining about having being inconvenienced and having to rearm or having bad luck. How is that a problem in any way?
We have custom loadouts. You don’t have to take all of the munitions. These additions you are discussing about wouldn’t add more flexibility than we already have.
From playing CAS myself there are very few possible situations at hand, only three. There are either lots of planes, lots of tanks and SPAA, or a mix of both.
SP cost and SP penalties from spawning additional aircraft is a game mechanic that applies to literally every nation. This isn’t exclusive to the US tech tree.
In fact this affects the the US tech tree the LEAST, not only do the aircraft offer incredible flexibility, but also it has excellent helicopters for every high tier lineup, so you can spawn either a fighter or a heli reactively based on a situation without having to earn more SP to compensate for a second spawn penalty.
Are you stupid? The point he is making is taking an aircraft labeled as a fighter twice costs multiple times more than than 1 labeled as a fighter and one as an attacker.
No no, I fully understand that but I don’t understand how it even problematic. Also how a universal mechanic unfair to the US in particular is what I do not understand…
The US fighter aircraft at these battle ratings are extremely versatile and can effectively run multi role. And even if the player wants a dedicated CAS, and a dedicated Fighter in their lineup, they could just bring one of the many excellent choices of helicopters available combined with a strong A2A fighter.
Two things:
- Verbal warning from grammar.exe…
- Fly a plane before you assess it as “not enjoyable”…
Why? The speed difference (disadvantage) between an A6M5 at 5.3 and a P-51 H-5 is way larger (~200 kmph) than between a Spit Mk 24 at 6.7 and a Me 262 at 7.0 (=~100 kmph)…
Why? In order to provide you with a free frag? Just because his team was bad?
Same nonsense as af aaa - leveraging game impact due to artificially lowered (= highly unrealistic) to see even more min fuel spammers? The only “fair” solution would be 25 minutes min fuel for all props…
You missed your target…
They said they’re literally making a poll about it. if people hate it, they can just vote against it. It’s the opposite of tone deaf.
The redistribution would be that at a lower BR, doing helpful actions is easier, therefore you do more of them, so you end up with similar rewards overall. it would just reduce the rewards per action of “bomb a base”.
I think most of your other points I can reply to with “…but this is PvP A2A combat game, not a PvE game”. If they wanted to make a PvE mode, they could’ve probably just tweaked Heli PvE for planes. Them not doing it indicates that either
- the demand is not high enough and wouldnt bring in enough profits
- it would hurt the profits of the PvP mode more than it would generate on its own
- it would cause more trouble than it’s worth
If you want to play ground attackers or bombers, there are ground battles. If you want to solely play PvE and turn your brain off… you’re playing the wrong game.
I mean, yeah… the game mode is called “Air Battles” not “Base bombing” so there aren’t enough for everyone to just base bomb. Yet people prefer it because it requires 0 skill.
The whole “grind > everything else” mentality of this community is so messed up to begin with.
Sure, the A6E tram can space climb in GRB and stay out of SPAA range to bomb targets effectively. BR increase for it can be justified. But the A10s do suffer in 10.3 BR because it always faces the 2S6 and strela which can send a missile under 8km. But the A10 can only target lock from under 6kms and the so called “fire and forget” missile does little to no damage most cases. And the upgraded 2S6 can launch at 10 km. A-10 Early should be moved back to 10.0. Now this iconic plane is unplayable in GRB. Its already slow in ARB.
What about the F-16A ADF, unlike the other F-16s, they have no air to ground ordinance whatsoever. shouldn’t they get the originally planned move to 11.7 for GRB?
Please use this thread to continue discussion.
Thanks