yes you could do that, but if you belly landed it counted you as dead and crashed. your wheels needed to touch. Atleast for the past 2 years or so
Again standing still is not a requirement for caping. being in constant contact without crashing is
No those have been unable to cap ever since the restrictions on crashing have been made.
Again realism is of absolutely 0 relevance. nothing in ground RB is realistic.
Or how do you explain tanks capturing a zone while fully on the move? if you control an area you do that by fortifying said area. So how can your crew fully operate atank and move around while fortifying the area at the same time.
The “slide in” has been gone for years. Wheels touching the ground for more than 1s was the only “slide in” that was possible. Speed was irellevant
Would you keep calmly taking photos of a crashed spyplane while a T-64 is driving around trying to run you over or spraying machine guns everywhere while doing donuts?
Wtf?
I asked a question and you answere in fucking riddles.
Again How do you explain tanks being able to fortify a position while on the move and in combat without dismounting ot stopping?
My first example earlier in the thread of something a “cap zone” might represent in-universe, is a downed spy plane that both sides want to secure the crash site of before the other guys get there. Scientists/engineers are trying to photograph it on one side, or thermite scuttle it on the other side.
A tank does not have to be sitting still to very much so intimidate the scientists/engineers to run off for cover/leave the area, thus controlling the point for such a purpose.
I’m not sure why you think a tank SHOULD have to sit still to cap a point. They are very effective while moving around on the ground, it’s kind of one of their whole things.
Airplanes, on the other hand are unwieldy as hell and generally only go in a straight line while moving at any speed, and are about to leave or are trying to focus only on becoming still. They’re not trying to run you over or something WHILE also landing.
Yea and mine is about fortifying a position to defend against enemies after capturing it.
So how does that happen.
Again your stupid realism thing can not work and has no bearing on the discussion. If you do not want unrealistic stuiff in groiund RB you simply should stop playing it because NOTHING IN GROUND RB IS REALISTIC,
again my headcanon is that they fortify a position. which can not be done while moving.
Im responding to your argument of person nolonger being able to calmly take photoes. A Po-2 in the aie would do that just aswell as a lot of ground vehicles.
As far as capping points go your argument doesn’t exactly tell us that aircraft shouldn’t be able to cap. In fact it tells us they should be able to.
I just want aircraft to turn the letter Blue while im inside the chalk circle
Easy, your headcanon is just a bad one, then, since it doesn’t fit the game well.
As long as there are other, better examples that do match the way the game mechanics work with a plausible storyline, then quite simply “The War Thunder matches are representing those ones, and not the other ones”. That’s fine, it is not necessary for immersion for it to work for ANY/ALL possible articulable scenarios. Just some
We aren’t talking about in the air though. I think “should cap points be paused for ticket bleed while being bombed or strafed” is just an entirely different thread, which you should post if you think it’s a good idea.
Precisely for the reason you just pointed out above: that the fortification part of defending doesn’t make sense while moving… YOU were the one that said you didn’t think it fit gameplay, not me… why are you suddenly arguing with yourself?
You said that a PO-2M in the air (I assume therefore either bombing or optshots with the gunner while it flies by) would stop people taking photos.
Yes, it would. Until it flew off, then they would resume. Without landing, there is obviously no way that the PO-2M created any sort of lasting presence to assist its side beyond those few seconds. So the most that could really make sense there is “pausing the ticket bleed” maybe. I didn’t say it was NOT silly, it’s just the only thing about cap points that would make any possible sense in response to attack from the air.
Regardless, it wasn’t relevant to the thread, which is about landings, not stuff in the air. So belongs in a different thread anyway.
YOU had a headcanon, and then you pointed out a flaw about YOUR OWN headcanon not matching the game mechanics.
That is you arguing with yourself. None of it had any bearing on MY headcanon’s plausibility. So how is your weird, bad, self-undermined example my problem? Textbook definition of a strawman. You designed it to be a bad example on purpose instead of actually trying to think of a scenario that fits all the game mechanics.
