Why are we fighting? We agree here
they wouldn’t be the only ones, buddy.
if u want we can start chatting about fatigue mechanic and autoloader stabilization like Zenturion7 showed on her videos.
were we even fighting atp, lmao?
I repeat, one thing is realism, another one is authenticity. The game already follows game conventions and many conveniences, so I don’t see in a world how is fair that the quickest reload has to be behind a P2F mechanic depending on the fact the loader is either a human or a piece of metal.
The argument begins to sound a lot more like selective realism than anything else.
“My tank is allowed to reload as quick as your trained tank, without both spending a single dime on crew training or my tank going through the authentic mechanism.”
Another point to add, if skill affects loaders why don’t autoloaders have a “Weapon maintenance” like jets to modify their loading speed in logistics?
Maintain your autoloader or it won’t work flawlessly and at maximum speed.
1 Like
Ehh sorta kinda. Tone more than words.
Gaijin, probably…
9 Likes
u don’t understand it, but i do…
2 Likes
Back on topic
My main issue with the Pantsirs + BUK is that damn see through trees radar. It’s just so accurate against helis compared to most other systems.
And that new hypersonic missile shreds, wow what 4-5 seconds to hit targets 8-10k out? Very little reaction time and good luck trying to notch the pantsir.
It doesn’t help the main counter for AA being helis being hard countered at spawn by those systems.
1 Like
the difference is that u can modify ur tank’s reload with a human loader, u can’t with an autoloader and u’re forced to repair it if damaged to work properly, u don’t need a loader in an Abrams to reload, but u do in a tank with autoloader, that’s the difference.
the fact that WT takes away realism when talking about reloads is very funny cuz irl a loader wouldn’t be able of reloading Leopard’s cannon while moving at 58km/h, just like an autoloader would be able of reloading extremely slowly when critically hit.
To which, fundamentally makes an autoloader-based tank better? You can only get one crewman of replacement. Get two crewmen after replacing one and you’re permanently stuck on +10s reload, while technically you can still repair anytime your autoloader as long as you have crew available or you don’t get ammoracked, which is already hard if you go below 14 shells.
i would prefer to be stuck with +10secs reload in a better tank than stuck forever with a 7secs reload in a tank with bad mobility and fancy armor.
it’s rare to lose just the loader in a NATO MBT, u rather lose both gunner and commander/loader/or all 3 of them die.
If they want to buff NATO tanks, they should buff their repair speeds or nerf 3 crew tank ones, since that’s also an advantage of tanks with loaders and 4 crew
1 Like
i agree
1 Like
So what this boils down to is the thing that I’ve already addressed
The new Pantsir is problematic.
Again, I’m not defending the addition of the Pantsir, but we will have to accept that the counter against a Pantsir is using a tank.
We probably can go back and forth forever about how we think the CAS v SPAA dynamic should look like, but at the end of the day the main counter against SPAA always will be a ground vehicle, even when CAS has the upper hand.
So, now that the new Pantsir is here the proper next step should be to give other nations anti air vehicles that are similarly effective at intercepting incoming A2G ordnance and not to just buff CAS again. Just nerfing the Pantsir sadly is something that Gaijin just isn’t willing to do.
All that buffing CAS will achieve is making the ground gameplay even more miserable and I am amazed that people still haven’t learned that the way CAS has been “balanced” in recent times never leads to improvements for the actual ground battle experience.
Giving CAS more tools to either overwhelm or to specifically counter anti air should only be done once there is an acceptable level of balance between all nations in terms of anti air.
Otherwise you just end up making the situation for teams without a Pantsir worse.
Ideally a battle should be decided by whose side plays better on the ground (that includes destroying anti air using tanks and sometimes resisting the urge to spawn CAS)
2 Likes
Crazy idea, but have you thought about just spawning in another tank instead of jumping into a heli when you are aware that there might be a Pantsir?
Then they should reduce CAS cost if they take steps to reduce its role. Air support has been important in every era in war thunder
That would literally turn GRB into ARB
Agreed
Then it’s not balanced and need to be nerfed, or better yet, removed since it had no reason to be added.
Agreed, and this should be uniform. Remove the KH-38MT, or at least limit it to attackers. Power creep won’t be solved by adding SPAA but instead by limiting the role of air-based combat entirely. IMO CAS was balanced before this update, save for the copious amount of KH38s which has only gotten worse since the update.
I disagree. It should be removed. There also exists no NATO counterpart unless we have a stationary platform like a C-RAM, which would be way too broken. Patriots could be added too but that would fall into the long range category.
Which was before the update.
CAS should be high value but also have a high reward/impact, not hard countered by AA at a fraction of the SP cost
1 Like