Why do CAS players so vocally oppose any suggestions

[RunaDacino]

@warrior412

Depriving players of the rightful access to their vehicles isn’t popular.

I feel like being in a very weird position of being an air main that’s also anti-cas…

But, air RB/AB/sim exist and have existed without ground forces being a thing - so a TO mode wouldn’t lead to access being deprived.

@warrior412

The implication that AI ground fire in the Air modes is ‘harmless’ is incorrect

I’ve only ever been shot down by Airfield AA in ARB. I know they added mid-field AAA for a while that was kind of like sim convoy AAA, but afai experienced, it got nerfed/removed (1.0-10.3, idk about higher. Granted, I fly fighters.) In sim, I’ve gotten shot down by a random fleet or convoy passing near an air superiority point with their laser guns, and gepards made ground-striking a significant challenge in my sabre and banshee.

@MotorolaCRO

You’re allowed to turn.

You just turned into a sitting duck with your lack of acceleration and terrible energy bleed.

@MotorolaCRO

And some ground vehicles can only function properly in wide open maps, but are locked in small CQC mazes. You know what people do to mitigate that ? Just spawn another vehicle.

In ARB, you get 1 life per spawn and are locked in before going into battle. In sim, you do have more but nations tend to have tendencies.

And yes, ground RB maps are terrible if you dare play anything that isn’t a hulking behemoth or fast brawler. Fun times all around for british tanks.

@MotorolaCRO

All of which can be mitigated by making the maps smaller and placing objectives for planes to linger around, as I already said.

ARB maps are already way too condensed to be in any form playable that isn’t chaotic, mindless furballs. Ground maps make for terrible CAP experience - you barely make a turn and you’re within enemy AAA range (and planes phase into reality a mere 5 km beside you)

All you’re doing with your idiotic “add player SPAA to air” is diminish and weaken the arguments for fixing the grossly unbalanced and broken CAS in ground battles.

I half wonder if it’s not intentional - make the people wishing for balanced CAS look ridiculous and dumb by sheer association.

CAS can exist. It needs to be balanced

1. Airfield spawns, not air spawns. Some slow/heavy WW2 propsand early jets can get air spawns right above the airfield like the PBM and other hydroplanes get in air sim
2. Airfields should be moved back dynamically to about 10 km rank 1,2; 20 km for ranks 3-5; and whatever distance maintains time-to-threaten for ranks 6+ (I only have fighters so idk about guided ground-strike weaponry’s effective range)
   1. This benefits flying CAP by giving you room to maneuver, chase, intercept enemy CAS without them flying 5 km to be within a magical flak box that hits you no matter what
   2. This benefits CAS by letting them spawn in and fly smart to evade interception and long-range SAM
   3. This benefits ground by making the mean time between bomb drops take ~5 minutes (90 second to fly out, N second to drop bmbs, 90 seconds to land, 30 seconds to rearm (or 15 with maxed crew), 90 seconds to fly out again from the current ~3 minutes.
3. Make air-to-ground armament cost increasing SP for ease of use and have it scale with BR (1ton dumb bomb at 4.0 is broken as all hells. 1 ton dumb bomb versus MBTs is much weaker)
4. Make CAP be able to progress ground-trees. As present, flying CAP is a massive punishment. First - ground RB is the least fun way to fly imo (it’s way too claustrophobic, planes phase into reality), it’s unrewarding (2 kills in ARB - 5000 RP. 2 kills in GRB: 1000 RP). Second - none of the already pitiful RP you gain goes towards ground research, effectively making it so when you fly CAP you might as well not be playing at all.
5. Fill SPAA gaps. Having to use a oversized drunken & pregnant cow of a truck at 7.7 britain with very long reloads to fight jets is an exercise in significant frustration - especially with presence of super mobile semi-modern IFVs.

These help with CAS issues.

“Add spaa players to air sim/ARB” does not. It just makes the “I want CAS to be balanced” side look ridiculous and idiotic.

[MotorolaCRO]

@warrior412

Years ago, I raised the idea of multiple RB GFs-esque battles being positioned and played under a larger, ongoing RB AFs-eque match. Brief mentions are about as far as that got…but it did attract some interest.

That’s about the best case scenario one could envision for what you’re suggesting…and it’s vastly different from just adding SPAA to the Air modes.

This would require a much larger number of players per game, so I don’t know how Gaijin would make that happen. Your suggestion is fine though, it’s what a true combined mode should look like. What we have now is an half-assed try of that that’s obviously flawed to the bone.

I haven’t just proposed to add SPAAs to Air, other changes would need to be made too as I stated.

@warrior412

why would AF players need to have SPAAs at all? Nothing about the GF modes requires anyone to have/use aircraft/SPAA/etc, it’s strictly as you wish to pursue them.

It would seem that you’re simply trying to rig the mode against aircraft…

No one would be forcing them to have SPAAs, but not using/having them would reduce both their and their team’s competitiveness. Just like it is with air units in GRB.

Rigging anything isn’t my goal, I’m just copying combined aspect from GRB into ARB.

@warrior412

The implication that AI ground fire in the Air modes is ‘harmless’ is incorrect…as is the suggestion that WT players would be alright with the combined modes being forcibly converted into a quasi-TO with AI.

I’m just following on the implication of other user that AI in ARB isn’t really that dangerous.
Same goes with AI units making a game mode combined, I disagreed with that already.

[warrior412]

@RunaDacino

I feel like being in a very weird position of being an air main that’s also anti-cas…

But, air RB/AB/sim exist and have existed without ground forces being a thing - so a TO mode wouldn’t lead to access being deprived.

I was referring to depriving players in RB GFs access to their (player controlled) aircraft in lieu of AI, which would make RB GFs a quasi-TO.

@RunaDacino

I’ve only ever been shot down by Airfield AA in ARB. I know they added mid-field AAA for a while that was kind of like sim convoy AAA, but afai experienced, it got nerfed/removed (1.0-10.3, idk about higher. Granted, I fly fighters.) In sim, I’ve gotten shot down by a random fleet or convoy passing near an air superiority point with their laser guns, and gepards made ground-striking a significant challenge in my sabre and banshee.

I seldom play RB AFs anymore; still, over the years AI AAA has remained decently potent (intensity has varied). AI Airfield AAA has been a problem with the meta since 2015 (at that point, it was incentivizing camping at your own base to allow the AI to slaughter the enemy team).

@MotorolaCRO

This would require a much larger number of players per game, so I don’t know how Gaijin would make that happen. Your suggestion is fine though, it’s what a true combined mode should look like. What we have now is an half-assed try of that that’s obviously flawed to the bone.

I haven’t just proposed to add SPAAs to Air, other changes would need to be made too as I stated.

Is WT imperfect as-is? Absolutely.
Flawed to the bone? No, not really.

As for my suggestion, one reason I never really bothered putting pen to paper is the laughably doomed EC and especially World War modes. I don’t see a future in such grander set ups as large matches…most players don’t have the patience for it.

@MotorolaCRO

No one would be forcing them to have SPAAs, but not using/having them would reduce both their and their team’s competitiveness. Just like it is with air units in GRB.

Rigging anything isn’t my goal, I’m just copying combined aspect from GRB into ARB.

I’m still not seeing how the SPAAs are supposed to figure into RB AFs in the first place.

If they were placed in reasonable positions with reasonable BRs, they’d be liable to be dodged on range limitations alone (at most BRs anyway).

[MotorolaCRO]

@RunaDacino

You just turned into a sitting duck with your lack of acceleration and terrible energy bleed.

Small maps tend to do that.

@RunaDacino

In ARB, you get 1 life per spawn and are locked in before going into battle.

Wouldn’t mind more spawns in ARB.

@RunaDacino

ARB maps are already way too condensed to be in any form playable that isn’t chaotic, mindless furballs.

ARB maps are already much bigger than GRB ones when comparing effective ranges of both. GRB maps already suffer from being chaotic, mindless furballs especially higher up you go.

@RunaDacino

All you’re doing with your idiotic “add player SPAA to air” is diminish and weaken the arguments for fixing the grossly unbalanced and broken CAS in ground battles.

This is about making ARB combined, which would really suit the Gaijin’s idea of combined arms game.

@RunaDacino

CAS can exist. It needs to be balanced

Those are some decent suggestions, definitely would help.

[MotorolaCRO]

@warrior412

As for my suggestion, one reason I never really bothered putting pen to paper is the laughably doomed EC and especially World War modes. I don’t see a future in such grander set ups as large matches…most players don’t have the patience for it.

But every true combined arms map/mode should be pretty big. You’ll need space to accommodate ground, air and naval units with their respective objectives. If most of the players don’t have patience or aren’t interested, maybe it’s for the best to ditch that combined concept all together.

@warrior412

If they were placed in reasonable positions with reasonable BRs, they’d be liable to be dodged on range limitations alone (at most BRs anyway).

Just how planes have multiple BRs for various modes, SPAAs could as well.
Range limitations could be fixed by making maps smaller and forcing players to come near certain objectives. SPAAs could also be incorporated from a given tier/BR, just like helicopters or strike drones are in GRB.

[AlanHR]

@RunaDacino

3. This benefits ground by making the mean time between bomb drops take ~5 minutes (90 second to fly out, N second to drop bmbs, 90 seconds to land, 30 seconds to rearm (or 15 with maxed crew), 90 seconds to fly out again from the current ~3 minutes.

Not really, as ground maps are very small in regards to air space in RBGF. The only thing that would help ground would be much bigger maps so planes would have to make an effort and find a target. Its not the same finding a vaiable ground target in 3x3 km map with 1.5x15 km active AO in regards to 10x10 km map with 8x8 km active AO.

[RunaDacino]

This is literally what I proposed?

Move the airfield back.

Your plane has 2 bombs and flies at 400 km/h casually, can accelerate to 500 km/h.

Currently, airfield is like 7 km away. My speedrun bomb to rearm to be able to drop again without practice in the f4u-4 came out at…

Drop bomb at 01:06
Land at 02:13
start Take off at 02:45
Be able to dorp bomb at ~04:10

So, time between bomb drops without maxed crew and without practicing stupidity-style landing where you stall out and belly land on top… you can drop 2 1000 lbs bombs every 3 minutes in the ideal cases at 4.0

Why is this the case? The airfield is 7-8 km away. This is fine for interwar and early war aircraft that struggle to reach 250, 300 km/h.

It should be 15 km away at ranks 3, 4 and 5 (maybe even push to full 20, 25 at rank 4 and 5 since speeds allow it). The time between bomb drops would encourage using strike aircraft rather than fighter-bombers.

[AlanHR]

You did not. You only proposed air travel increase. Ground maps are still too small and finding targets is way too easy especially on high BRs with targeting pods.

[MotorolaCRO]

I would also like to see removal of that “Enemy team is/stopped capturing zone” message. That thing is basically a giant beacon for CAS.
I don’t know why we should be privileged to information on capture point’s status, if you’re close by you’ll see it yourself, you don’t need any stupid messages.

We could save something like “Enemy has captured zone” message, so the position is revealed only after capping has be done and CAS don’t have like 30 seconds to engage you.

[warthogboy09]

It’s always visible at the top of the screen anyway. Remove the text all you want, doesn’t change a thing.

[MotorolaCRO]

It’d be easy to remove that animation as well.

[warrior412]

@MotorolaCRO

But every true combined arms map/mode should be pretty big. You’ll need space to accommodate ground, air and naval units with their respective objectives. If most of the players don’t have patience or aren’t interested, maybe it’s for the best to ditch that combined concept all together.

It sounds like you’re proposing abandoning WT being WT…which is a non-starter for WT’s future.

As for the other bits, I agree–I figured an RB GFs map like [(RB AF) Alt. History] Krymsk could accommodate multiple battles (perhaps even more than 4 GFs battles) operating on the ground while the bigger RB AFs match occurred overall…but I never went ahead with writing out the whole breadth of the idea.

The combined idea I have is much further reaching than what is currently had…but it’s hardly a reason to give up on what is. To give up on what we have now is to give up on WT period.

@MotorolaCRO

Just how planes have multiple BRs for various modes, SPAAs could as well.
Range limitations could be fixed by making maps smaller and forcing players to come near certain objectives. SPAAs could also be incorporated from a given tier/BR, just like helicopters or strike drones are in GRB.

The main fault with the SPAAs in RB AFs concept is the mobility limitation (and players’ attention spans)…particularly when you consider the vertical ‘roads’ often seen on RB AFs maps.

Without naming the exact quadrant it’s in on the Britain map, I recall seeing a ‘road’ that was just plain vertical. Humorous as that is, it’s a commentary on the fact that SPAAs would need far more than what they have to traverse RB AFs maps.

@MotorolaCRO

I would also like to see removal of that “Enemy team is/stopped capturing zone” message. That thing is basically a giant beacon for CAS.
I don’t know why we should be privileged to information on capture point’s status, if you’re close by you’ll see it yourself, you don’t need any stupid messages.

We could save something like “Enemy has captured zone” message, so the position is revealed only after capping has be done and CAS don’t have like 30 seconds to engage you.

I have no idea if it’s a glitch with the patch or not, but these continuously jam now. Capture point control shifts stay on the screen for minutes at a time nowadays…and it’s irritating.

I don’t particularly care about the status notifications myself…with/without them is fine by me, you just have to monitor the board well.

[MotorolaCRO]

@warrior412

It sounds like you’re proposing abandoning WT being WT…which is a non-starter for WT’s future.

Didn’t WT start as a plane-only game ?
Seeing games grow and include more various modes/maps/etc. is a natural thing, but if players are reluctant to engage in the true combined aspect I think Gaijin should take that concept way more leniently, allowing much more freedom to players (separated standalone modes for all military branches).

@warrior412

The main fault with the SPAAs in RB AFs concept is the mobility limitation (and players’ attention spans)…particularly when you consider the vertical ‘roads’ often seen on RB AFs maps.

Never said it would be plug and play. There would surely be some needed changes, but if Gaijin is so keen on making their game combined arms, I think doing those wouldn’t be an issue.

[PercussionCap]

@warrior412

The implication that AI ground fire in the Air modes is ‘harmless’ is incorrect

AI ground fire is harmless unless you’re within 3km of an airfield.

@warrior412

as is the suggestion that WT players would be alright with the combined modes being forcibly converted into a quasi-TO with AI.

It’s just giving the same treatment to Ground Realistic that Air Realistic has enjoyed all these years. What’s the issue?

[warrior412]

@MotorolaCRO

Didn’t WT start as a plane-only game ?
Seeing games grow and include more various modes/maps/etc. is a natural thing, but if players are reluctant to engage in the true combined aspect I think Gaijin should take that concept way more leniently, allowing much more freedom to players (separated standalone modes for all military branches).

Air modes were what made WT successful at first–but the game has always been abput CA gameplay.

@MotorolaCRO

Never said it would be plug and play. There would surely be some needed changes, but if Gaijin is so keen on making their game combined arms, I think doing those wouldn’t be an issue.

Trust me, that concept is ridiculed for good reason.

@PercussionCap

AI ground fire is harmless unless you’re within 3km of an airfield.

I seldom play RB AFs anymore, but I remember my surprise at being blasted by mid-map AI AAA…it was an unexpectly potent encounter which leads me to doubt how watered down mid-map AAA is.

I don’t think it’s insta-death, but it has teeth I’m sure.

@PercussionCap

It’s just giving the same treatment to Ground Realistic that Air Realistic has enjoyed all these years. What’s the issue?

That idea is inconsistent with WT values. RB GFs is the player-centered CA mode (RB AFs is complemented in part by AI due to distances).

[MotorolaCRO]

@warrior412

Air modes were what made WT successful at first–but the game has always been abput CA gameplay.

Why would a CA game start by being non-CA ?

@warrior412

Trust me, that concept is ridiculed for good reason.

Yeah by people that mostly play Air and wouldn’t want their mode to change. That concept is perfectly viable, you’ll just need to do few changes before it’s ready.

@warrior412

That idea is inconsistent with WT values. RB GFs is the player-centered CA mode (RB AFs is complemented in part by AI due to distances).

Not really. If GRB has player controlled ground and air units, ARB should as well. That’s literally giving both modes the same treatment and it would go hand in hand with combined arms aspect.

[Ion_Protogen]

@MotorolaCRO

ARB should as well. That’s literally giving both modes the same treatment and it would go hand in hand with combined arms aspect.

I can’t figure out a way for that to made enjoyable and good for everyone, unless there is a 64v64 ground/air battle on a full size ARB map with a larger playable ground area. But then you run into the issue of it being a ground battle with an ARB match happening at the same time.

How could something like that be done?

[MotorolaCRO]

@Ion_Protogen

How could something like that be done?

I think it would be pretty simple to make ARB combined and playable, just take GRB as an example. As for the enjoyable and good parts, I can’t really tell since combined stuff would be harder to balance, with GRB as a living example of that.

ARB needs to be redone from scratch, and this is the perfect moment to do it, seeing how it’s getting worse and worse every year.

Give it GRB treatment, make maps pretty small and put objectives to incentivize people to hang out. This is where player controller ground units would come into play.
It doesn’t need to be combined all the way down from 1.0, you can introduce it at a certain tier/BR as well.

[Ion_Protogen]

@MotorolaCRO

make maps pretty small

Absolutely not. Some planes need alot of space if they want to use their advantages well, such as bad dogfighters like the F-104s (the only time I’ve felt claustrophobic in a plane was on a 64x64km map in sim in the F-104G). Most American propeller planes are screwed too since they need space to climb or else they will be wrecked by a 109/spit/yak.

@MotorolaCRO

put objectives to incentivize people to hang out.

Objectives being too close together is one of the primary issues that ARB has, it forces everyone into a small area instead of spreading everything out. It also has the side effect of most matches being steamrolls that end in a 1v5.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Ion_Protogen

Some planes need alot of space if they want to use their advantages well

Same goes for ground vehicles, but seems like Gaijin is fine with having that in the game,. This is simply a more-or-less copy of GRB but with air units.

It’s surely not perfect by any means, but it’s hard to make proper combined modes with only 16 players on each side. GRB is a prime example, but if that’s the Gaijin’s idea of combined, implementing the same system in ARB shouldn’t be a problem in their eyes.