Why do CAS players so vocally oppose any suggestions

Be me spawn a click bait get 2 kills cap a point die to a strv 122+ spawn wolfpack get a kill on a 2a7 die to a MQ1 spawn spaa to deal with it die to su25k spawn other spaa kill su25k another mq1 kills me spawn m1 Bradley make it 100 ft out of spawn another su25k kills me spawn xm800t rat tank make it 50ft out of spawn and die to the entire enemy team staring at me because we were getting bombed in our spawn the whole game 10/10 definitely balanced

1 Like

Nope, what I want is the vehicle class to be actually fun to play. You don’t get real “teamwork” outside playing in coordinated squads. The spinning radar dishes of higher tier ones attract everyones’ attention. I want to do my part to solve the problem, but I’m not about to be cannon fodder and waste SL in the process of doing so. The only SPAAG I truly enjoy are ones like the Falcon which can actually go on the offensive and thus be able to intercept CAS when it strays close enough.

40mm Bofors L/60 can melt a lot of things. The 40mm Bofors L/70 much more so. But with how commonly you see the likes of KV-1s now that three different nations have them, constantly running into something that you cannot penetrate anywhere gets old very fast.

The Ostwind 37mm only penetrates 49mm of armor. That’s barely enough to reliably pen a Sherman. Nevermind many mediums with 45mm armor or more. And the Ostwind isn’t exactly small enough to hide from things, either.

My opinion comes from very much enjoying playing and spading the Falcon. I want every SPAAG to be that powerful, simple as that. CAS isn’t complained about all that much around that BR between the likes of Falcon/Marksman/Gepard/ItSPv Leopard/AMX-30 DCA/Falcon/ZA-35 all running around. That is a model for how I think all SPAAG should be in a relative sense.

Buff the intended counters to CAS so that anyone with at least one brain cell can use them in their intended role effectively, then nobody has an excuse to complain about CAS any further. Any further complaints about CAS become the fault of the complainer, not the fault of the game.

Might be “realism,” but as far as I am concerned, its not a “balance” change. It’s an anti-whining change. I see no real difference between the likes of a Gepard melting tanks with APDS and any of the autocannon armored cars doing the same with APCR/APDS belts. The cars get limitless stocks of said rounds, but AAs don’t.

This is a case where, in my mind, gameplay is more important than “realism,” because all those SPAAG are thrust into a highly unrealistic environment.

I see no difference between the two classes, other than one being unfairly hated and gimped, while the other is treated with kid gloves. SPAAG should be unshackled from harebrained anti-whining restrictions on their ammunition supplies because they are forced into a highly unrealistic environment.

The moment the enemy plane doesn’t fly straight at you, it is surprisingly hard to hit them, moreso if they are actively dodging. Especially if you’re using a Bofors L/60, ZSU-37, or Ostwind 37. Meanwhile they launch an HVAR in the same postal code and your usually open-topped AA is melted. Even a 500lb bomb is overkill.

But go ahead and hide behind your “wall of skill” and ignore the actual problems instead, I won’t stop you.

The entire “earn SP” system is FUBAR and needs to be completely ripped out. Replace it with Simulator’s much fairer SP system instead.

Idk what planet you’re living on, man. But unless an SPAAG is able to effortlessly melt most tanks it runs into, it is anything but “braindead” to play. Even the Falcon isn’t truly “braindead” to play either because its not particularly mobile and is made of glass - a single .50cal will melt it in seconds.

You and I and everyone else on this forum and elsewhere has waited ever so patiently for the average player to learn SPAAG correctly. It’s clear they won’t ever learn it correctly - I’m tired of those same people complaining “CAS OP” leading to more collateral damage on the whole game when snail randomly nerfs some CAS weapon to try and placate that complaining. Hence I propose buffing SPAAG to the point where those people no longer have a right to complain, and if they try, it becomes a problem of their own, not one of the game’s.

We departed the land of “realism” ages ago, man. If we were ever there to begin with. As soon as city maps proliferated and became the norm we left reality completely. That was long before the first modern ammunition type arrived in 1.47 (HEATFS on the SU-122-54 and M103).

The R3-T20 is using a gun of the same dimensions as the Rh202 seen on Marders and others. It is therefore able to use DM63 APDS without issue - the R3 was never accepted into service and remained just a prototype, but had it been accepted it would have almost certainly gotten this shell.

Again, we left reality a long time ago, the moment city maps became the norm. Real tanks avoid city fights unless they are 1) with heavy infantry support which the game doesn’t have or 2) are completely surrounded by hostile forces and have no other choice.

I would rather see the machines in question become viable and fun to play even if it means making them slightly unrealistic.

Nerfing SPAAGs’ ability to kill tanks is not “balance,” though. It stopped being balance the moment hull break arrived. It stopped being balance when hull break was replaced by overpressure. It stopped when volumetric shells arrived. It stopped when APCR was given excessive shell shattering probability. It stopped when barrels were increased in tankiness.

The old belt composition and ammo count nerfs may have once had justifiable reason to be kept, but they do not have such reasons to be kept any longer. Not when IFVs sometimes with the exact same cannon and limitless stocks of APDS exist at the exact same BR.

An SPAAG going to play “Ersatz TD” is just a worse IFV - taller, slower, no ATGMs to punch through heavily-armored units, sometimes less-armored, and then also having a giant spinning radar unit which makes it impossible to hide.

The Whirbelwind with its original 65mm pen full APCR belt and the lead indicator aim assist I propose might warrant punting up a little, but no higher than 4.0. Beyond that side armor starts getting thicker than 65mm.

The Ostwind at 3.3 with its missing 142mm pen APCR belt and the aim assist would indeed need to go up, probably to at least 5.3. The Ostwind 2 would be 5.7 material with the same belt. The Coelian would be capable 7.0 material with the same belt. The Kugelblitz is 6.0 material at best with its old full 95mm pen APCR belt.

And the BTR-152s? They only pen 45mm at most, they should stay right where they are or even go down, lead marker addition or not.

As for the Pantsir, I’d rather first give every other nation an equivalent machine and then see if the Pantsir needs increasing. Plus, I wouldn’t be surprised if those 30mm autocannons are missing an APCR or APDS round.

No. You cannot make an entire vehicle class defenseless against nearly all tanks, reliant wholly on idiot pilots flying right at it while not firing every piece of ordinance they have in your direction to get kills, and still expect SPAAG to be used commonly.

Your “wall of skill” is harming the whole game, pal.

And nor are we supposed to be having tank fights in cities without infantry support. SPAAG would be real effective in turning infantry into red mist in that case…

By all means, pal, keep hiding behind your “wall of skill” to ignore the problem.

2 Likes

Like You hide behind trying to gaslight people to play what they don’t want as the “solution”?

1 Like

Don’t paint all “CAS Supporters” with the same brush.

I like using tanks, SPAA, fighters, and CAS myself. In both Air RB and Combined modes.

I don’t want a TO mode now because it doesn’t solve anything wrong with how CAS currently functions. It doesn’t address the idiocy of revenge bombing. It doesn’t make SPAAG any more fun to play in their intended role. It doesn’t address the idiocy of the “earn SP for plane” system. It doesn’t address horrible tank map design making tanks feel like fish in a barrel for CAS. It doesn’t address the complete and total lack of the real objectives CAS would go after instead of tanks most of the time (e.g. bunkers).

What it would do is 1) create some level of playerbase split, 2) lead to a horrible overreaction by Gaijin over any level of queue time disruption, 3) break many maps that much more without CAS to remove people from troublesome spots, and 4) empower equally vocal fringe sectors of the playerbase to start clamoring for their “[insert vehicle type]-only mode” and rapidly spiral out of control.

At very least, I will never support such a mode until all of CAS’s actual problems are seriously and permanently dealt with. And even then I’d only support it in a limited format sorta like Simulator’s rotating lineups, or via ULQ’s “opt-in” checkbox queue, or making it exclusive to “terrible weather has grounded all aircraft” situations of heavy rain/heavy snow/low thunderclouds creating turbulence.

Basically - I think going in that direction would only screw up things further. I don’t support the idiotic “killstreak powerup” and “anti-camping mechanism” implementation of CAS whatsoever.

2 Likes

False

1 Like

That’s only a problem on maps without flank routes, and even then you can just simply let your teammates deal with em.

That’s plenty for side penning, not to mention it has APHE.

aka planes

the difference is armored cars don’t have radar and 2 fast firing 35mm.

There’s a reason Za 35 gets far more use than these “armored cars”

then that’s simply your problem

skill issue.

double skill issue

I agree, but that’s not reason the SPAA is spawned almost exclusively by low-skill noobs

aww yes, cause sitting in spawn and 1-shot planes with 1 out of 500 bullets you fired is extremely skillful.

Well guess we should give P-47s SLAPs and ballistics computers cause “We departed the land of realism ages ago”

They’re perfectly viable even without fictional ammo belts

It is in many cases.

AP pen means nothing for shooting down planes

cool. infrantry isn’t in Warthunder so all that matters is SPAA effectiveness against vehicles

the problem is your skill issue. None of your problems (e.g Bofors being too weak) is an actual problem, and is infact, just skill issue.

if you can’t dodge a 800-900m/s shell in a 500km/h moving aircraft from 1-2 alt a good chunk of your gray matter has to be missing

2 Likes

If you’re firing at planes outside your range then that’s your problem, not mine.

The tankers are already leaving all the time. My friends list is full of people who do not play this game at all these days. What you have left are the “tankers that are OK with flying”, or as I call them, “pilots”.

Some of the pilots make skilled tankers. Some are just in ground vehicles as needed to get into an airplane. (Those are the ones making the best rewards in GFRB) Some will want to come here and say how skillful those pilots are at tanking. I’m pretty sure you’ll see, if you watch their combats, that they are skilled in the minimum needed ground actions to get into their aircraft, and then quite skilled at slaughtering ground targets, especially SPAA and SAMs. (Mostly in ways such that the ground vehicles can’t shoot at them effectively before they are dead.)

Go play the Lvkv 42 and come back :)

He ain’t talkin bout Lvkv 42. I have the bofor truck though and it’s pretty good,

With gaijin’s calculator it wouldn’t go that high, its the same ammo as on the Bf 110 G-2’s gunpod.

But still a bit much for 3.3 I agree, though there is a ~67mm pen solid shot available too, and thus the APCR could be left to a different vehicle, maybe the Flakpanzer III. Or vice versa.

A WW2 apcr Having more pen than Modern apfsds Shells see Puma(the Modern One) and cv9035?
Will definitely be much lower in-game

The only time a fighter-bomber descends under 1 km altitude is during a bomb drop, which is probably not going to take longer than 1-2 seconds of pitching/rolling over, diving to 500 meters and pulling back out flying at very fast speeds at very high aspect to the SPAA.

Is that case, they’re only killing campers which deserve to die anyways.

From extensive experience using them: to write off the 50kg bombs is a mistake.

While they are indeed far more needy than large bombs, the Germans’ 50kg bombs do work when deposited correctly.

You commonly talk about this…but your math seems hazy and open to debate.

To be a tanker who flies, you pay for:

  • The involved vehicles (both aircraft and ground)
  • The costs to acquire and crew (plus, optionally, crew training too)
  • Repair costs

Given the costs involved with GFs and the inferiority of earning rates for aircraft in RB GFs versus earning rates for aircraft in RB AFs, it seems far likelier that a skilled tanker using only tanks to good effect (while bypassing all aircraft-related costs by not using aircraft) would probably yield more efficient earnings than a tanker who flies as a rule.

Clearly, player skill variation makes these sorts of calculations a generalization…which is why I contest the claim.

3 Likes

It depends if they play ARB or not.

If they play ARB, this cost is effectively only relevant to the tanks AND I found it’s much easier to make a lot of SL in ARB over GRB in a short span of time. It does require jet tier planes (for the 5-8 minute in and out due to speed), but you can easily end a battle with 20-25K SL profit in the airspawn F84B/G, sabres and especially the F8U-2 (Missile bus surrounded by low level premium players who use mig21s to bomb bases: Space climb over them, yeet missiles, get 1-3 kills depending on the mig 21s awareness, get missiled yourself and die in 5 minutes. Go next for another 20-30K sl game). Base bombing/groundpounding likely offers even more consistent profits, and probably starts much earlier with props.

However, with this I agree but for a different reason.

Research points. Any research point obtained flying a plane - whether as CAP or CAS - is worthless. You’re gaining aircraft research rather than ground research. You’d earn far more air research flying ARB even as a zomber/groundpounder, so getting air over ground research means you’re doubling if not tripling the time it takes to research your next desirable line-up.

This is something I*d love getting changed because right now the game severely punishes you for playing CAP. Like seriously, respawning your whole lineup and getting shot in each tank without earning any score will research your tanks infinitely faster than taking out your plane and shooting down 3-5 enemy planes.

1 Like

Yes, that is true–because if you were going to be playing RB AFs anyway, the costs involved are subsidizd by this. (At that point, only the costs and earnings variation remains.)

I’ve had similar thoughts about SPAAs for a similar reason myself, given that many are played as wannabe TDs simply because of the time limitations associated with ‘waiting’ for the enemy (aircraft) to turn up. (My solution was to vary earnings by kill type, a la SPAA killing an aircraft = 4x RP earnings as opposed to SPAA killing a GFs opponent = 1x earnings)

As someone who often plays SPAAs aggressively to get some use out of them, similar factors facing patrolling aircraft is something I understand clearly. (I do encounter this with the aircraft myself too–though I usually have pretty good luck finding enemies to engage.)

4 Likes

That seems like a potentially good solution.

For aircraft, I’d say something like air kills contribute to ground reseearch. I’m fine with ground kills doing the same as well, but I’m open to ground kills only giving air research for planes since it’s much easier to achieve and thus would shorten the grind too much or whatever.

1 Like

To what?

I think you are missing what the OP meant.

A true GRB is what the OP is talking about . NO CAS,No planes just land vehicles. It’s a solution in itself.

The whole debate/argument of CAS in GRB goes out of the window. No more Airborne frustration and no more nerfing of peoples precious CAS.

The question is ,how and why do War Thunder players find the ultimate solution offensive?

If combined arms works well and you love the game as it is then fine but please dont spend the next twenty minutes typing an SA about how it needs " Balancing " or nerfing. Just get on with it and enjoy it.

If planes are ruing a potentially brilliant game then taking the planes out is the obvious answer.The game runs fine without them already so its no issue.

So the OP is saying that if TO does not effect those who like CA so why complain about TO? Basically its just forum pettiness. Rival forum regulars who feel their ego isn’t being massaged enough by their opposition.

You can see that by the early answers. " Somebody was a bit rude to me so I say no to a TO game " etc etc .Some times this forum exits for its own benefit and I’m sure some people spend more time on here talking crap than playing the game

3 Likes