I love how your argument is. “SPAA is fine, it’s only that all SPAA players are merely bad players who spawn SPAA cause they have to.” It’s such an asinine claim and straight up outs you as another CAS main making bad faith arguments.
5 Likes
Reducing the Gepard 1A2 to 9.3 is enough. Putting it at 9.0 is a bit excessive. Oh wait, you’re talking about the 8.3 one? That’s a nice joke. Gepard doesn’t belong there. It has 40 shot DM23. It has no proxy ammunition. And the way things are currently modeled it struggles to hit Helicopters and Drones, a lot. Which doesn’t align with how it performs IRL.
If anything the 9.7 one or Ozelot should go down to 9.3. Since the 9.7 one still doesn’t have FAPDS which is it’s MAIN and almost exclusive belt. And inherited all the modelling issues of the 8.3 one. While stingers won’t lock onto Helicopters beyond 3 km who can way outrange you.
“But it can kill tanks!”. Mostly light ones, or bad players exposing their sides. And guess what, so can the ZSU and other gun SPAA.
2 Likes
You mean putting it at 10.0 is enough?
Putting it at 10.0 would make it face a-10s and other cas planes much more often that will stomp it. It is fine at 9.7.
1 Like
A-10A isn’t super impressive, and the Gepard 1A2 would be surrounded by more powerful SPAA anyways. Ultimately, the solution is decompression, but until that happens, it’s better than Gepard 1A2 be overtiered than it be undertiered.
But it’s not undertiered. Neither the Ozelot or Gepard 1A2. They both struggle locking helicopters with the stingers in addition to be easily dodged by every plane ever. The Gepard can’t even properly shoot helicopters if they just sit behind the battle since you can easily dodge the tracer ammo aswell.
True, but a competent player in it will very easily destroy any stinger vehicle (It is just not great against other planes and more advanced spaa).
If we put the is-2 at 12.0 it would also be surrounded by more powerful tanks. Having better spaa that teammates could be in isn’t a argument for why it could go up.
True
While I do see how being overtiered might not be as bad is being undtiered, I don’t think the small amount of 8.7 planes that it can fight that will struggle justifies it going up.
1 Like
Then I’ll reiterate that the M247’s massive jump in SPAA capabilities more than match the Gepards advantages in anti-tank.
The gun performs fine because it’s tiny and faster. You’re more easily able to flank and ambush than something the size of the Gepard. And if you run into something you can’t pen, you have the option to hide, unlike the Gepard who’s large size and loud engine give it away.
I haven’t disputed that point. I’ve even made it outright myself earlier on. US CAS falls behind the curve from ~8.3-9.7.
At the cost of being larger, heavier, and 0.3 BR higher.
The Firefly can only carry 8 RP-3s if it brings bombs, and they’re very far out on the wings, making them hard to aim.
Meanwhile, it’s flight performance is just tragic. I’ve never played an aircraft that struggled to maintain speed this badly, and I’ve played the IL-2s. One hard turn and you’re out of energy, meaning long slow passes are needed, or you’re a sitting duck for SPAA. Also 0.3 BR higher.
Heavy fighters aren’t comparable to a single engined fighter that once it’s dropped it’s bombs can slot into the CAP role effortlessly. Don’t oversell the 20mms either, German ones have no decent AP ammo for them.
If by “leagues better”, you mean slightly smaller blast radius, sure. The 23mms are great, but that flight performance isn’t. Vertical loops are entirely out of the question, as is any sort of energetic turn. Also 0.3 BR higher.
Haven’t played it since it got bombs, but I remember the RP-3s being a massive pain to aim with, due to how far out they are on the wings. It’s also still a heavy fighter, no chance for going into CAP after you’ve expended your ordinance. I’d probably take the Hellcat for the extra bomb and fighter capabilities.
Your literal quote was:
So America getting a good SPAA option is a valid counterpoint.
So including a 9.0 SPAA in the argument is entirely fair. Especially when what I was responding to was the same as above. America going from having no good SPAA to having one of the best ones within the same matchmaking spread is relevant.
I mean, glad you offically outed yourself as a CAS main, rather than just letting it be a somewhat obvious conclusion. Certainly doesn’t imply a level of bias that would undermine your arguments at all.
But yes, the average player with 5 free crew slots would not bring multiple CAS options. At best, it would be a fighter and a non-fighter, due to how the SP system works.
We’re back this this confounding argument again. SPAA is overtuned and destroying CAS, but it’s also driven almost exclusively by noobs who are easily ouplayed? How does this make sense to you.
A 4.5 KD isn’t super impressive? You must have very high standards. And an alt account where you’re able to achieve those results in any other CAS aircraft.
Gaijin should increase rewards for spaas
2 Likes
Hi, sorry for the delay in terms of a response.
I admitted in the post that it was an idealized scenario, and yes, this is true. But the issue you describe is not relevant to the player skill debate. This is a fault of Gaijin’s poor map design and spawn systems. First spawning SPAA is boring, yes, but it can give you the edge that I described in my scenario. I personally advocate for Gaijin to add bigger maps, and a new spawning sytem similar to what this player suggested in this thread: Ground Battles - Dynamic Spawn Zone
This would help SPAA and tanks in general avoid being spawncamped. Other things that should be added in my opinion are AI SPAAGs that spawn in to protect players in spawn. Similar to base AA, but actually based on a radar lock instead of whatever nonsense base AA currently operates on where the missile will practically ignore the laws of physics outside of it’s range limit in which it will self detonate.
In terms of SPAAG capability gap at higher tiers, I am a strong believer in the fact that Gaijin should add multi-vehicle SPAA systems and I hope that they get around to doing it this year. Nations that currently suffer with a lack of proper AA will finally be able to catch up. I just hope that Gaijin can implement this in a way that actually works…
Outside of that, you bring very fair points.
Am I in the wrong for pointing out the issue? I even offer a solution, yet you seek to alienate me from the discussion by what I could only really describe as being akin to a knee jerk reaction.
If you want someone to blame, then look at Gaijin. They are the ones who implement SPAA in an extremely unrealistic way, they are the ones who make maps too small for players to have proper engagements, they are the ones who have been postponing the addition of multi-vehicle AA platforms.
I am the last person to claim any of the non-sense you present here. I am merely bringing the issue of poor player skill to light, and even pointing the finger at Gaijin, because it frankly is their fault. It is their fault they don’t give players the proper tools, knowledge and hell, proper maps, to counter planes. The possibility for a engaging engagement is there, because I have had it. I have first spawned AA multiple times, and let me tell you, it can be really fun if you do things the way I described. It’s simply very dependent on what map you get, and leaves you vulnerable to being unable to affect the match outside of removing planes from the sky.
I fail to understand what your point is, because frankly put, I am on your side. If you two had read my thread, you would have understood that. But instead, you read the title, and presume that I think SPAA players are stupid. The fault of poor player knowledge and skill is on Gaijin.
As I said, and I will reiterate; I think there is a skill curve for planes and SPAA. It’s simply that to play planes “right” is so much easier than to play SPAA correctly. It’s so much easier to go in your jet, set targeting marker to the middle of the map and spam your TV/IR guided weapons at enemies, rather than to actually counter that. But to do it in a way that means you actually survive instead of dying? That’s where the actual skill comes into play. You can spam your AGMs, but actually surviving in that plane for the rest of the match (which is what I usually strive for) is something that requires strict discipline in terms of exposing yourself, and understanding a map’s layout well enough so that you can rotate around the map in a way where you can always strike from an angle where you get the first shot off.
Meanwhile, the SPAA skill curve is different. If all you do is sit in spawn, then you’re good as a stationary ground AI target in Air RB. Use cover, reposition, use smokes if you have them and you will soon find that you can very consistently down even more “clever” CAS players without much issue. Because it’s very hard to shoot missiles through buildings, or rocks. Much harder if the target you thought was citting in C1, is now infact in A2 and the attack run they thought would get you infact results in their plane being turned into a burning, flying piece of rubble.
But ultimately, the fight does favour the plane. That’s what makes playing AA for me fun, because I know I am fighting against the odds. So as long as Gaijin models missiles poorly, refuses to give us proper AA systems, gives us the same crappy maps and gamemodes; things will probably remain the same. It’s just a relief to know that in most cases, the plane players are equally if not more clueless than SPAA players.
Recall a match where you had an actually competent CAS player on the enemy team or your team, that was probably the biggest stomp you have ever experienced in your life. Most people prefer to drop their load outs and then fly straight at an enemy AA, only to die right after that. And unfortunate thing is, Gaijin rewards and incentivizes that sort of game-play. Instead the sort where you are actually incentivized to stay alive in your plane, which would make staying alive an actual objective.
And finally, this thread is about the player issue. Only by admitting that it exists, can we actually do something about it. If all you do is point fingers, you won’t find a solution. The ONE THING you can actually influence yourself, you’d rather put your fingers in your ears and blame each other instead of actually sitting down to understand what’s happening. Because player skill is the one thing we can influence, to play with the cards we are dealt no matter how flawed they may be. We can argue all day about Gaijin’s poor modeling of SPAA, but the point of this thread was to talk about how YOU play a part in it. And by participating in finger pointing, you have honestly simply proven why this part of the issue will persist.
Thank you for participating in the conversation.
1 Like
What I think also plays a huge part in not actually learning how to properly play SPAA is the fact that the rewards aren’t great. At times, when there is a plane up and you spawn SPAA and actually manage to shoot it down, it gives you nothing. And if no plane comes after, you just sit there and either respawn, wasting the SPAA and/or SP or maybe do nothing for the rest of the game.
3 Likes
I agree. Rewards should be better.
You want to increase the BR of an already overtiered SPAA that lacks it’s actual IRL main belt why exactly?
This would help, and I like the idea, but it would also require a complete redesign of most maps to accommodate. In the post you linked, blue team’s spawn is alarmingly close to the C point compared to the red team’s. Then there’s the terrain to consider, most of both team’s spawns in that post are giant, open fields with no cover. You’d have people literally popping into existence within line of sight of the enemy if they push even slightly off the point. But yes, this system on well designed maps would help prevent the current spawn turkey shoot a bit.
I’m curious what SPAA you’d have AI controlled that wouldn’t just take the job away from player SPAA. If we’re talking 10.3-11.7 like in the OP, SPAA’s range is several times greater than the map, so any AI SPAA trying to protect spawn would also protect the entire map. There’s already an issue of spawning in an SPAA only to find someone else spawning in a longer ranged one, leaving you with nothing to do, having AI do that would be a little annoying. A CIWS to protect spawn from incoming ordinance would be cool, but also make SPAA that camp spawn invincible, which isn’t quite fair.
I very much hope so, as well as some better SPAA to fill the gaps. Too many lineups have to go without any useful SPAA.
I believe that this AI SPAA should be active when no planes are spawned in, and simply go inactive once friendly SPAA is available. The concept of a CIWS system is fine too.
Shorter range systems should be utilized for this, so systems that have both IR and kinetic capabilities would be ideal. It should essentially function as a buffer in the immediate “beginning” of the match to filter out CAS players who come too close to the battle field. Thus, not letting them claim immediate air supremacy if no friendly planes or SPAA is up.
It would force planes to use longer range ordnance, at higher altitudes, where (if, and hopefully added this year) more advanced AA systems that function from multiple vehicles could very easily be able to counteract and respond to the presence of enemy air.
It would also in a way, give an actually concrete objective for planes; that being to eliminate AA present on spawn before they can truly claim dominance of the skies.
I think forcing planes to climb would work very well with the addition of longer and much more heavy duty SAM systems. It would create a gameplay interaction between these new hypothetical long range SPAA, and planes; where the plane actually has to respond to the threat of SAM fire.
Changes such as this would require Gaijin to finally admit that their current way of making maps is flawed, and that new gamemodes that can actually support larger maps are needed. Currently, most modern SPAA systems have multiple vehicles, and they really just wouldn’t work on the small maps we currently have in the game.
In general, if we are talking outside the player interaction; a whole revamp of ground battles is needed to truly address the CAS issue. There are many opinions on this, but I think increased map sizes, new game objectives, better spawning system would pave the way for overall better game-play; but also address the CAS issue if done correctly.
In all fairness, the current issue is that the maps we have are largely ones that were originally intended for World War 2 based engagements. In these scenarios, they work fine. But for top tier? No. Gaijin has moved on with vehicles, but not with the gamemodes they have for them.
Either way, this is my opinion on this.
But it is.
You almost never have a situation where the only SPAA on the enemy team is stingers. CAP is also pretty common, so if the enemy team can’t deal with an A-10A then that’s their fault.
Gepard 1A2 is overtiered, Is-2 isn’t. You analogy makes 0 sense.
The issue is, Gepards multirole capapbility is simply more valuable than M247 slightly better anti-air capability
Gepard is already very powerful where it is. There no reason for Gepard 1A2 not to go up.
It’s still better
Just bring 500 LBs. It’s still a better aircraft.
Its turning isn’t great, put it performs very well in other areas.
They’re still better for CAS, and pretty good for CAP. Again, they’re better than F6F-5
They shred aircraft and open-tops which is far more useful than .50cals.
You mean significantly larger blast radius.
It turns very well, but even then, most engagements end before you even need to turn.
It’s simply a better vehicle.
The 4 20mms in the nose more than makes up for it.
Actually it performs very well as CAP.
Beaufighter is better at both CAS and CAP than the Hellcat.
Again, American getting a new SPAA has nothing to do with the Gepard’s br.
It’s not 8.3 or 8.7
Wow clap clap clap clap clap clap clap. You finally outed me for being a “CAS main” from my love of Tiger bomber.
Truly a 200 iq moment.
They do when the tanks of their tier suck.
That’s how 90% of my lineups up, although most new players don’t know to do that.
Because you’re confounding talk about two different BRs. That’s the only way you can make your argument make sense in your head because even you don’t believe what you’re saying.
It was my “sign in with Steam” account. If you’re seriously denying that Bosvark and M42 are good SPAA, then you have gyat to be the worst SPAA main in WT history.
No, I want to increase the BR of an already udnertiered SPAA that has its historical belts.
My analogy wasn’t about how the vehicle performs, it was about your stupid argument.
In your opinion, having never tried a Gepard. And that slightly is doing a lot of heavy lifting, comparing something that can’t consistently counter guided weapons with something that can easily.
Other than the complete uselessness of stingers to actually counter standoff guided weaponry of any kind, which is most of what it would fight if it goes up. Gepard 1A2 vs A-10, I wonder who wins?
Firstly, that’s debateable. Being larger and heavier makes it more vulnerable to CAP. The Hellcat can shed it’s ordinance and then proceed to fight and win against most other aircraft commonly used for CAS at this tier. The Helldiver cannot, unless they’re dumb enough to get sucked into the one circle fight.
It also makes it far easier for SPAA to shoot down. You know, that things you claim is OP and dominates CAS? A larger, slower target is much easier to shoot down that a fast, nimble fighter.
Secondly, even if it was better, you’d expect it to be. That’s how the BR system works. It’s like comparing the M36 and the M36B2, and claiming that means the M36 is terrible.
Only the French one is capable of this.
And refer to the above reply as to why it being better isn’t definitive, and even if it is, isn’t relevant. It’s 0.3 BR higher.
It’s large, heavy, has poor acceleration and terrible energy retention in all flight aspects. Even worse when fully loaded. This renders you highly vulnerable to SPAA and CAP, as above.
The 410s certainly aren’t, between a hard to use gun due to the platform or two bomb drops compared to three. And the difference in CAP ability is night and day.
They get less ammo, lower velocity and are on substantially more clumsy platforms, making them less ideal. Yeah, they kill faster than the .50s against open tops, but the .50s aren’t slow at it, and can deal with light armor effortlessly.
The Russian 500 kg bomb has a 10 meter blast radius, the US 1000 lber has a 12 meter. This isn’t a trick question, you could check this yourself.
If your opponents are dumb enough to headon you, sure. If they merely point the nose up and take the fight vertical, you’re already dead.
Refer to the other comments on why a larger, heavier, slower and higher BRd vehicle isn’t better than a small, agile, lower BR’d one.
Ditto.
Which wasn’t the original point of contention. I literally quoted what you said, that I was responding to.
Ditto.
- Posts image of a lineup where 4/6 slots are aircraft.
- Top three most played ground vehicles are light tanks with negative K/D ratios.
- 8/10 most played aircraft are CAS vehicles with profoundly negative air K/Ds.
Yeah, it’s not obvious at all.
No, they’d do that if they wanted to fly planes in GRB. If the tanks suck, then play a different lineup. Otherwise you aren’t grinding tanks effectively, so you aren’t getting to different tanks that aren’t bad.
You claim both that Gepards and their equivalents are massively overtuned and broken, and also that CCRP works at this tier because SPAA players are too stupid to move. Both refer to the same tier, claiming that SPAA is both overpowered and a nonissue.
This is a sad attempt at deflection. You know KDRs are public knowledge, right? You’re now up to a 5.3 KD in the A-10. The closest you come to that in any plane you have a lot of games in is 3.8 in the AD-2, with all others being under 2.0.
If the A-10 isn’t exceptionally strong, why is you KD in it so much higher than it is in every other plane?
Your analogy was impressively bad.
Getting 2 air kills (the only enemy planes to spawn whole game), multiple ground kills, and a point cap is better than getting 2 air kills (the only enemy planes to spawn whole game).
In case you hadn’t picked up on it already, the Gepard is the one with multiple ground kills and a cap.
Skill issue
It’s barely larger, and has 20mms and more HVARs so it’s better at countering CAS.
No1 is claiming the M36 (F6F-5) is terrible. I’m simply claiming I prefer to play M36B2 (SB2C)
okkkkk??? I was specifically listing french aircraft.
From my experience, it has a pretty strong engine. Much like the F4U-4B, it turns like shit, but you can with fights simply with engine power.
F6F-5, on the other hand, has worse energy retention and has less engine power. Ontop of that, it gets .50cals instead of 20mms, and worse payload options.
Well I’m sorry you have so much trouble with German 20mms. From my experience, they shred planes and open-tops insanely quickly.
The extra damage they do more than compensates for it.
Stat cards mean nothing.
I just shoot em. The 23mm have incredible range, so climbing isn’t a valid counter.
XD you spend more time checking stats on vehicles I haven’t played in months than you spend playing Warthunder.
Here are my “CAS main” lineups.
Spoiler
So you’re mad that people aren’t playing their most powerful vehicles at a given BR? Do you want people to just not play 5.7 America?
You are the only one who’s claimed that. I’m saying they should be 9.0
Congrats, you have discovered what happens when you don’t play low-midtier America for months.
The fact that you think Bosvark and M42 are bad is honestly somewhat depressing.