Are you aware that Roland have a search radar and that search radar will be tracked by sensors on board Su-22/17 and F-4? I mean you feel like being a super player of SAM in War Thunder give you green light to be hanging out killing everything without you be killed or without the rest of the game players have even option to try kill your Roland?
-
HARM doesnt work if the target switches their radar off. A lot of SAMs can operate quite happily with their radars off like the Gepard firing Stingers or the Strela or Stormer HVM which dont even have radars and even the FlaRakPz can track using IRST.
-
I dont struggle killing any SPAA in game except the Pantsir at top tier and thats mostly due to the nerfed state of aircraft like the Typhoon or Tornado Gr4.
1 Like
So as your understanding a better tactical map and HARM missiles put your Killing rate on danger and if someone ask for this things they are complaining? All new aircraft they are adding have the option to sweep the floor with your SAM. If Gaijin add the missiles and sensors then you are out of context in this conversation. You always have the option to go RB an see all as god
Buddy you are telling me things I know. I’m happy you are a smart guy and you want to show here all your knowledge. I’m more than happy to see Gaijin adding all the tools need it to make you work hard on your tactics.
I don’t mind if you help SAMs community to learn how do your tactics.
What you get now is not what should you have for your game play after the SEAD hardware is introduced in WT.
Mean time have fun
If you want GROUND vehicles defeated, your team has GROUND VEHICLES capable of doing that.
In rock paper scissors, rock does not beat both paper and scissors.
Helicopters and fixed wing dominate tanks without relief. They’re the rock to scissors.
Helicopters and fixed wing should be dominated by SPAA/SAM. They’re rock trying to beat paper. Paper should win except for mistakes.
Tanks beat SAM/SPAA. Some SPAA can threaten tanks due to APDS rounds and APHE and whatnot, but some SPAA can do nothing against tanks. Tanks are the scissors that rip the paper apart.
Who do you think wins? The 9.7 Roland 1 or the 8.7 T-62?
I strongly recommend you fly air simulator battles if you do not want to be threatened by players whose literal job is to protect their teammates from your one-sided dominance. However, you might still run into issues then - interceptors whose job is take down bombers are a thing after all and your best bet is teamwork, communication and innovative, stealthy approaches.
1 Like
Man that guy is weird, reading his replies makes me wish WT had a year long period with a bug that makes every single plane explode 3 seconds after spawning in
1 Like
There should be bigger maps, normal rewarding, some minimissens like bases with anti air defence and much more, landing hook should have its own key and landing on the carrier sould be inproved sometimes you can bug inside the carrier or just side off.
Whats a HARM gonna do vs a Strela?
What’s a HARM gonna do vs a SPAA using IRST?
Stop your coping and accept the game for what it is, you ain’t forced to play it and it wont be changed no matter how much you are crying about it
The request is easy to understand. MiG-21, F-4, F-100 earlier versions are 60 aircraft and Gaijin is building Simulation Battles missions with SPAA units 20 years newer. WHY?. Should I have a hard time using a 60s vehicles decreasing my Silver Lions in favor of SPAA players gaining rewards with easy job against older aircraft doesn’t represent the reality for 60s vehicles in a context of Simulation.
Can I use my 60s air vehicles purchased as premium with my money in this game without give rewards to stupid kids want to have easy kill with his 80s SPAA?
1 Like
He should be talking about ground, with brackets putting e.g. AlphaJet vs PGZ09 together
To add and clarify why chaff is ineffective against the Roland 1 AI SAM defenses.
It’s because it uses the Doppler radar technology which can easily distinguish between slow-moving chaff and a fast-moving aircraft. Allowing it to filter out the chaff as a false target.
You can dump as much chaff as possible if it makes you feel better. But in reality, it’s completely pointless.
Does the same apply to Gepards?
and PD shouldnt work if you notch the PD radar, but even then. I dont think it breaks the lock.
as far as I am aware. AI SPAA within ASB simply ignore CMs
It won’t since the Gepard also uses the Doppler radar system.
All you can do is zig zag, and avoid flying straight that can make it easier to zero in on you.
The SPAA AI in EC are set to fire in bursts, and not full automatic fire.
The SPAA set on these Simulators Battles Air Ground vehicles are way newer and we are in Simulator mode. So, the 60s aircrafts should have the right to face 60s Air defenses. That make sense? It’s not about to balance Air and ground vehicles. If at 60s were the Nikes and Sa-2 or M42 Duster and ZSU-57 AAA that is what should be down ground for 60s fighter.
Rolands, Strella are highly mobile and required targeting sensors with IR sights. Such technology was not in 60s fighters as Mig-21 and F-100. How come we should buy a premium aircraft to grinding facing happy kids usings 80s hardware to stop grinding peoples have spent money in premium 60s aircrafts? and they are getting highly rewards rate for grinding and the person that bought his premium 60s aircraft should go hell? not right by Gaijin!!
If you want to fly a plane, play AIR simulator battles not GROUND simulator battles.
Paying money does not entitle you to dominate other players unopposed.
You keep wanting to fly a plane in a game mode that is the only options for tankers. You have a game mode all to yourself without tanks or SPAA. Why won’t you play it?
Air sim has issues, but it’s quite fun when those issues are worked around.
Ground sim brackets are also stupid. They need fixing. Why am I able to go and grab my plane and fly whenever, even if it’s a stupid decision, but if I wanna drive a firefly in sim I can’t unless the stars align.
Thus, we need better bracketing system.
That’s a legitimate complaint.
Going “I paid money therefore enemy shouldn’t be able to counter me” isn’t.
7 Likes
Yup… I do agree, though if you want some dynamic CAS gameplay. GSB is actually pretty decent for it. Its extremely boring attacking the battlefields in ASB.
1 Like
«Oh no! I paid for a premium, plz let me be a killing machine»
1 Like
I’m talking about the persons made and set this 80s vehicles to face older aircraft. From the right moment they designed such a disbalanced missions in favor of newer ground SPAA players they are killing the gameplay for people that at the same time spent money to do the same (grinding) with particular Era vehicles. It’s not that I have more rights to spend my money, and you know very well what I am talking about. The 60s aircrafts don’t have Technolgy to face that threat, there are SPAA from 60s to set and leave alone the players develop the right skill for the right generation aircraft facing what they got in the same timeline IRL. Otherwise Qaijin can change the name to “SPAA party and easy Grinding”
This is a PvP game.
What this means that both sides of the conflict should have the means to oppose and threaten the enemy. Now, must everyone be able at every moment have an equal chance fighting everyone? No. This is a team game.
Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Aircraft: Interceptors tend to be sturdy, fast aircraft that struggle in maneuvering and potentially visibility. They fall easily to air superiority fighters. Meanwhile bombers have heavy, large caliber turret armament that if it strikes a single-engine fighter it can spell death even if not immediately - single-engine fighters can beat bombers, but it’s a costly match-up. Plus, guns are usually wing-mounted vs interceptors’ nose mounted guns However, single-engine fighters can more or less easily win most match-ups with most interceptors as they tend to be more maneuverable even if they have weaker guns that have lower effective range. This distinction becomes blurry in the later years of world war 2 as engine power becomes greater and allows carrying heavier armament and sturdier construction.
Now. Same logic. Ground.
CAS utterly dominates tanks to the point it’s not even funny. In SB, due to enforced sim controls and cockpit view this disparity is somewhat mitigated by difficult of spotting targets and actually getting your plane onto a trajectory to drop the bomb and then pull out without killing yourself.
I’ve only done CAS against arrows in ASB, and even that’s way harder than doing it in GRB due to no mouse aim (F4U-4)
Still, aircraft have the upper hand against tanks.
Against period-accurate SELF PROPELLER anti-aircraft weaponry, aircraft still have a serious advantage. From what I’ve read about SPAA pieces from WW2 through the korean war and starting the vietnam war - they served better as deterrents than actual kill-potential. Hitting a jet or even a fast-flying late-war prop without any guidance systems with relatively low velocity rounds is not going to work. Just look at the service history of the ZSU-57-2
Air superiority however? It works.
CAP acts as a pretty justified and fair counter to aircraft. It’s usually same-era, same technology just like in air matches. However, there’s one massive issue.
Simulator battles.
The skillset neccessary to pilot aircraft with full-real controls is seriously different compared to air RB and can take many hours, if not days of mindful practice and study until it clicks.
I don’t know where I fall in the realm of sim pilot skill, but it took me a whole 24 hours of getting dunked on over, and over, and over again in live sim matches before I finally got a fair 1vs1 dogfight kill against a comparable enemy fighter who was aware and trying to kill me (f4U-4B vs N1K2j).
Flying without rudder pedals and some form of head-tracking will also put you at a marked disadvantage in terms of situational awareness, nose handling, stall handling compared to someone with an actual dedicated setup.
You can learn to make it work without either using hacky solutions (relative rudder my beloved, I shall forever spread your gospel) and gumption, but it is going to be a lot of effort with a massive barrier to entry.
Meanwhile, GSB vs GRB is the exact same control scheme for aiming and movement and the major differences manfiest in tactical gameplay (IFF, map size) and situational awareness (no convenient corner peeking. There’s a TINY skill bump in parallax adjustment, but that’s a rather quick barrier to surmount.
Now, add onto this that grinding aircraft if you just want to play tanks is a lot of unwanted noise. At least in GRB, flying planes is easy and they fly themselves for you - you just point the way and it’s all done. You can swap from driving a tank to flying a plane without significant barriers.
So now we have a big issue.
Period-accurate SPAA is anemic and weak.
Expecting ground players to learn how to fly an airplane using realistic controls not to have their gameplay dominated by something they cannot counter is antithetical to principles of a PvP game.
Giving Ground players RB controlled aircraft is antithetical to it being a simulator and removes the option from those of us who do know how to fly to cut their teeth against targets in an dynamic or even urban environment over the static arrows.
Solution?
Give an SPAA that can reasonably threaten the aircraft and deny them the ability to do their job.
Yes.
Deny.
Aircraft deny tanks the ability to do their job.
SPAA deny planes the ability to do their job.
Who denies SPAA?
Tanks.
Rock, paper and scissors.
Rock doesn’t have the technology to face paper.
It must work with scissors to defeat paper.
If you don’t want to rely on random strangers to do their job as scissors to cut the paper that wants to strangle you - I understand fully - come fly in air simulator battles.