if you break it down, we all just do math. its all math behind the code. This is stupid.
If you exclude IR slingers which obviously don’t work for the most part, what other SPAAs we’re left with that can effectively deal with a helicopter (8.3 btw) from 3km away ?
Have you ever played a starter heli before? Go play the mi4 then get back to me on if you can reliably get kills from that range.
2 Likes
Done it with Alouette.
I’m still waiting for you to tell me which SPAAs can easily deal with threats at 3km of distance ?
2 Likes
it is very much so where spaa cant do much if you actually use your brain in a helicopter however youre very easily killed by even propeller planes
True, but the heli can be spawned from a start while to get to the plane one must die in ground vehicle while doing somewhat good before.
not with atgms though (and rockets are ass in starter helis)
2 Likes
There was no actual mention of ATGMs and that changes the whole premise. In case of ATGMs your statement is correct.
atgms are implied because they are what you use against ground targets while you are 3km away from spaa and close to untouchable.
wz305, pgz09, m427, literally all ir sams in game now… i can keep going?
Don’t know if you ever realized, but this game isn’t just US and China, there’s 8 other nations.
It’s a well known fact IR slingers will struggle to lock helicopters at 3km and beyond so no, IR slingers will struggle to deal with most starter helicopters, let alone against stuff with extended ranges found at their BRs.
You actually need to keep going.
Finding a couple of AAs out of dozen+ doesn’t really look that good to be honest.
5 Likes
The “put SPAAs in the Air modes” talk has been an amusing, albeit hopelessly naive, source of entertainment for many years on the WT forums.
Anyone who suggests the idea usually has either a very poor grasp of WT, despises any semblance of balance (a la setting up enemy SAM/SPAA units beside the team airfield) or some mix of both.
3 Likes
or secret third option: trolling
1 Like
Turning Air into a combined arms mode is viable by just copying what has been done in Ground.
Make maps small (really easy), create “objectives” so people are incentivized to linger there and add SPAAs that can easily deal with air threats.
Put those SPAAs in Ground TT, so Air mains have to grind through whole TTs to remain competitive in their mode.
Making Air combined is relatively easy, which doesn’t mean people (especially Air mains) will be happy about it.
1 Like
I seriously question if you are discussing in good faith, or are genuinely trolling.
Have you ever flown a plane.
Even a BR 4.0 plane (if american) has like 300-400 km/h casual cruise speed.
Some planes can easily take up half 8x8 grid square just to turn around without bleeding all their energy.
Also air is already combined arms. There’s A.I units doing AAA. They’re pretty fangless in ARB, in air sim though -
Battlegroups are usually fangless at prop tiers, starting korean jets you get gepards (idk what redfor faces) which if you linger with ground-strike weapons can and will shoot you out of the sky - encouraging fast in fast out approaches.
Convoy SPAA for both naval and ground are laser accurate.
Now, why does A.I work and not players?
A battlegroup sits in one spots for potentially dozens of minutes without seeing any players depending on team composition and other objectives. A convoy SPAA starts driving at one edge of the map and spends easily half an hour just driving in a straight line. Gameplay I’m sure ground mains are dying to experience.
1 Like
I did.
You’re allowed to turn.
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.
Great, let’s just remove player-controlled aircraft in GRB and let that be done by harmless AI to keep the combined arms status.
All of which can be mitigated by making the maps smaller and placing objectives for planes to linger around, as I already said.
1 Like
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.
Putting aside the bizarre nature of the whole ‘SPAAs in AFs modes’ premise…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…
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.
Depriving players of the rightful access to their vehicles isn’t popular.
1 Like
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’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.
You just turned into a sitting duck with your lack of acceleration and terrible energy bleed.
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.
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
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- This benefits CAS by letting them spawn in and fly smart to evade interception and long-range SAM
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
3 Likes
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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).