So you find irt cartoonish and weird that a biplane is capable of landing?
A plane landing is cartoonish and weird.
No. Absolutely not. What we have now is far less balanced because again only 3 nations have access to sth every nation could do. Making it inherently unbalanced.
99% of all capture points are not accessible to planes. around 85% not even to the smalest heli. Yet 100% are accessible by tanks. That is totally unbalanced and needs to be removes. We need caps only accessible by PLANES!!!111!!!11!1
Any cap a plane can land on is open field with 0 cover. So any tank can easily… you know… shoot the plane. The extreamly fragile large plane.
In fact tanks have less counters against Helis and Vtol aircraft landing on caps as those can actually land behind cover, making it absolutely impossible to snipe them with a tank. So again what we have now is again less balanced then it was before.
Again you are talking about checks and balances while defending the removal of a more balanced feature in favour of a less balanced feature.
It was a fun mechanic which maybe changed tghe outcome of 1 out 10million games. Yet Helis landing in caps behind cover happanes in nearly every 10th game. And there is 0 counter other than trying to outrun the heli in your tank…
Ah yes a mechanic which is
and for which
is now suddenly described as
makes sense that a 0 counterable mechanic is also 100% reliant on luck to succeed.
You make 0 sense dude.
Again what we have now is, statistically, less balanced, because it only leaves the vehicles capable of caping points with cover. So the amount of landing with cover increased from sth like 2% to close to 100%
It also removed an increadibly rewarding and satisfying gameplay mechanic for which you find literally 0 negative comments and regulary even got praised by the enemy for executing it.
And as you said, and also not said, because you seem a bit confused, it is easy to counter because caping planes have 0 cover, are slow and very fragile.
In the middle of a town courtyard, to exert some sort of meaningful military control of the surroundings, yes. That is ridiculous. Biplanes did not do that. They land at airfields. MAYBE paratroopers would jump out of planes to control a ground location, but we don’t have those in game. Certainly helicopters would, but Gaijin still allows those to cap. All sensible options among tools we have in game are allowed.
only 3 nations have access to sth every nation could do.
??? Every nation has helicopters.
99% of all capture points are not accessible to planes. around 85% not even to the smalest heli. Yet 100% are accessible by tanks
Yeah, it’s ground mode champ. And even aside from that, IRL, unless the strategic area of interest IS an airfield or immediately attached to an airfield, that is how control of ground areas of interest actually works. So in a “combined arms” mode (although it isn’t called that), regardless, it would STILL only make sense for the ground units (or helicopters/vtols) to have the job of securing ground areas of interest, that’s how combined arms work too anyway.
Any cap a plane can land on is open field with 0 cover.
Biplanes can land on almost any cap
makes sense that a 0 counterable mechanic is also 100% reliant on luck to succeed.
Yeah actually you’re right, it actually isn’t that luck based, since you could land places where nobody is there to shoot you to begin with. I take that detail back. Doesn’t change the main issues with it though, including imbalance through lack of counters in those situations where you have the opportunity, and cartoonish ridiculousness.
3 nations have VTOL planes. Now every nation with STOL can’t cap a point. Why the inconsistent treatment of aircraft? This isn’t balanced for nations that could feasibly land on a point and take it.
Something tells me you havent actually tried this very much in practice.
Very few points facilitates landing a plane and taking it without excessive taxying and friendlies removing obstacles.
With the experience i have when “regularly” trying to do this before is that biplanes are not the best option.
What in terms of “sensibility” Seperates VTOL to STOL to regular aircraft in terms of “excert meaningful military control” To warrant such time and effort into being opposed to the feature returning?
Well, being honest id probably guess you are more interested in removing game impact of planes more than anything else.
Good thing both helicopters and vtol planes can capture points, then, not only vtol planes.
Why the inconsistent treatment of aircraft?
Because vtol planes landing … vertically … isn’t cartoonish nonsense, it’s their whole purpose.
This isn’t balanced for nations that could feasibly land on a point and take it.
yes it is because they have helicopters still.
“OMG not every nation has the Marder III! So unbalanced” “But they have Ho Ni’s and PvKvs and stuff that do the same role…” “But it’s not THE MARDER SPECIFICALLY! omg!”
Something tells me you havent actually tried this very much in practice.
I can land a BV-238 on an aircraft carrier. And played aroudn a lot back in the day with landing biplanes on the little spots between the torpedo tubes and the superstructure on like NPC destroyers to take funny screenshots as if they had survey planes. Yes, I can land a biplane in a street in a town or next to some oil tanks. Ash River B cap, Berlin B cap, and Japan C caps are the only ones that really come immediately to mind I don’t think I could land on, because they are like a few meters across 360 degree ringed with stairs or rocks. But quite rare for caps to be like that.
What in terms of “sensibility” Seperates VTOL to STOL to regular aircraft in terms of “excert meaningful military control”
True, if you want to remove it from VTOLs as well because they can’t carry useful weapons or backup to pivot around and fight stuff on a cap, that’d be fine by me, you make a good point for FURTHER reduction of this feature.
Okay, so you havent actually tried and realized the hell that is ground clutter.
I think any honest look at this line of argumentation would realize it would make most singular ground vehicles in-eligable to capturing a point if compared to planes like the TU-4 which can on some maps pull of a point landing.
But i guess you can stay opposed to what is otherwise a fun feature.
What other caps have zero non-cluttered approaches? There being clutter isn’t enough of a problem, it has to be a 360 ring of clutter to not have an approach.
I think any honest look at this line of argumentation would realize it would make most singular ground vehicles in-eligable to capturing a point if compared to planes like the TU-4 which can on some maps pull of a point landing.
? Imagine a cap point is, for example, a downed spy plane that one side wants to scuttle into useless scrap, and the other wants to protect until it can be taken for research (or just photos etc of it)
You need to be able to feasibly shoot at scientists and engineers scurrying in trying to do one or the other thing, so that actual other military vehicles are sent to root you out (who are the other players on the other team, the outcome of which is the game we play).
A VTOL huge jet pointed in one fixed direction perhaps indeed cannot actually stop any scientist from doing anything on the cap. A humble GAZ 50cal (edit: lol not 50mm) AA gun on a flatbed truck can.
Idk what this line of logic is given a cap is an arbitrary chalk circle with a hovering letter above it for which the magic ticket meter can be affected
So yes, you haven’t actually tried to do this very much have you
Both are far less inviting than any cap a Bi-plane or non VTOl aircraft could even attempt to land on ingame.
Strange that when I said only 3 nations I was specifically talking about aircraft and you choose to take my statement out of that context.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Sure mate. then show me where they Land on Rhine, Vietnam Ardennes, and literally every other map but 2 caps on Fields of Fire, 1on Poland smal and 1 on Poland large. There are some fringe cases on Normandy fields and 1 or two others, the rest is a resounding no.
Again it is not an inbalance.
You can leave your entire “reality” arguments out of this. War Thunder is a Game. We cap big Letters floating in the sky and somehow win a battle with 2 tanks remaining VS 25, because the Big floating letters say so.
The gameplay of this game is utterly and 100% unrealistic. The combat is unrealistic. The only thing with any sense of “realism” are the vehicle models, the armamants of them and some of the ammunition effects. Thats it. Nothing else in this GAME is compareable to reality.
Gajin removed a fun gameplay mechanic without reason to do so, and did not even tell anyone that they did it.
No one. Literally no one ever complained about the mechanic, yet many people complain that it is gone.
There is no reason for its removal. It makes the game slightly less interesting, versatile and fun.
You can not win this argument, because there is no argument. The removalö of this feature was a bad thing.
First of all… STOL aircrafts in game is NOT a Thing,…
Stop hiding behind it.
There would be no pilot stupid enough to land his plane in the middle of a tank fight → it’s pointless.
Even VTOL aircrafts shouldn’t be able to do this,… as the capture means military control → a landed aircraft, whatever it’s type can’t achieve any Military power.
If the civilians are doing their job 10 feet up in the air on a ladder, sure, maybe.
Idk what this line of logic is given a cap is an arbitrary chalk circle with a hovering letter above it for which the magic ticket meter can be affected
It obviously represents the fact that in real life, certain bits of ground are of strategic importance, which is generally why battles happen in the first place. Scaled to a size that makes sense for quick 10 minute games.
Downed spy plane, VIPs needing extraction, an embassy being surrounded by angry civilians, a cache of food or other supplies, a chemical/bio/dirty bomb threat, blah blah blah.
As I agreed, it is a big pain in the ass finding the opportunity where no tank is nearby to shoot at you, but that doesn’t affect the difficulty of landing itself. I’m not gonna take an hour waiting for such opportunity in ground RB, which I hate, but here’s a landing at the first cap-sized spot I picked out in the middle of town just off the right of the test flight airstrip
(If they don’t allow belly landings, then it would be harder, but they allow them just fine at friendly airfields. Meanwhile it does prove I didn’t taxi my way in at all, lol)
I failed once here because the hitbox on a house was unexpectedly literally like twice the height of the entire house, but I don’t recall that being the case on normal ground maps.
STOL is more of a characteristic with arbitrary limitations.
But my god the SK-60B can do short take-offs and landings. Landing coming from the mountain side landing on the elevated road on B point is within its ability just barely.
The point is that there isn’t any good reason why the harrier would be allowed to cap that point while the SK-60B can’t.
And im not exactly hiding behind STOL as a concept but i am calling attention to the arbitrary line that has been drawn for no good reason
Gimme a single IRL exemple of an armed aircraft landing in the middle of a tank battlefield, outside of emergency situations (fire on board/ pilot killed and gunner took the seat/no fuel left/ect…)
Gimme that one exemple, and i’ll consider that your point is somehow based on a realistic enough fact and should allow the feature to come back.
In between, let me tell you that i see no reason for you guys to be outraged by this decision.
Belly landings counted as crashes and you could not cap in ground RB. The spot you choose is also significantly larger than any non field cap in the game. Caps i described as semi possible are smaler than what you show here.
Hitboxes in ground Rb are the same as in air. Just not all models from air are used in ground, menaing air has more bad hitboxes. But identical models have identical hitboxes. And hitboxes in ground can at times be more than 50cm off. (On one desert map there is a rock which has is simlar in shape to an IS 2 and the entire turret of an IS 2 can stick out above the model, but the hitbox of the rock actually covers the entire turret of the IS 2.
Give me a single example of Tanks entering a town for tank on tank combat without any infantry being in the area.
Give me a single example of two sides in a tank on tank conflict rushing down a field to fight at 50m range in the middle of it.
The game is not realistic. None of the other mechanics in the Gameplay of ground Rb are based on reality. So your argument that this should not be in the game because of realism can not apply. If it did Ground RB would not exist at all.
Then you are incapanble of reading.
If you believe “removal of a fun and interesting gameplay mechanic for absolutely no reason and not even mentioning this change anywhere” is a totally fine thing to do as a game developer then I am sorry to say it, but You are as responsible for Gajins failures as is gajin.
You absolutely sure about that? Because although I didn’t capture a point in Ground RB, I did DE-cap points on some occasions before, and you could touch at like 100 km/h and it counted, it certainly didn’t wait for your to get “Soft Landing” to start working.
I’ve also done a whole bunch of plane stuff in naval, including capping a previously uncapped point, and it definitely started filling the bar while still at quite some speed as well, without any “Landing! 5SL” popup yet.
Speaking of which, if a belly landing does not normally count, were you able to cheese it with a floatplane that might not get counted as a crash since it’s supposed to belly land?
If it has to be a soft landing specifically, with no floatplane or other loopholes, then I would not have much issue with the feature being included in the game. That would also then help with realism, since you could take off again, and it might make sense that you are assisting in evacuating a civilian or a sample or something.
Im sorry you never got to experience this fun gameplay element before they removed it.
I think its also very important to point out that Ground RB maps, unlike airmaps have tons of ground clutter that will kill the aircraft. Every pole, fence, and other minor inconvenience will kill the aircraft extremely easily if not immediately.
There is a reason successful caps happened extremely infrequently
It needed to be soft landing where you do not count as crashed which afaik floatplanes do on bellyland on non-airfield surface in ground RB.
One could more easily de-cap points as one does not need to slow down to cap, you only need to be alive.
I don’t really see a reason to constrict that, but i guess one can advocate that one should not be able to cap when going above 50 kph in any vehicle. I just generally want equal treatment
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
