Only if you suddenly remembers your full downtier matches where no one pens you from the front bro lol they takes their turn to get pegged, nothing justified having a nuke button just because you have a weaker vehicle.
As before, I contest that whole ‘stronger’ claim, particularly given the overall picture (beyond just the “duels” of engagements themselves). Aircraft are not much different than flankers in RB GFs (hence why I call the skies the “aerial flank” often).
Again, any vehicles (such as SPAAs) in RB would have to be given fair BRs. They could not be allowed to be artificially strengthened by preferential treatment or a thumb on the scale which would constitute an anti-aircraft bias. Players would object to such malpractice and rightfully so.
I don’t see how spawn points would figure into the SPAAs in Air modes (SIAM) idea at all…the Air modes are single spawn.
I was referring to capability, not anything like chronological consistency (any hopes of which disappeared long ago).
Um…no, not really. RB GFs has not “suffered” from the presence of combined arms gameplay in it…it’s designed for all of that. RB GFs is the mode that is intended for player versus player CA fighting.
As I’ve said before, it is also untrue to suggest the Air modes are not also combined already…they are, just with AI.
The reason for AI units for CA in the Air modes is two fold:
- The Air modes preceded the implementation of the surface forces (GFs/NFs)
- The realities about player-controlled surface vehicles into Air mode maps make the idea impractical
As many (including myself) have noted, trying to get players to wait around for the chance (not guaranteed) of an enemy aircraft coming into engagement range of their SPAA (or ship, if you were pursuing the idea further) would make for pretty dicey gameplay–particularly when getting players into these things in more favorable venues (RB GFs) is already a heavy lift.
Personally, I like the basic concept and thought about a very similar (albeit larger) concept with the RB AF + RB GFs battles meshed idea…but I don’t see that or this gaining traction based on current realities and the expected future they forecast.
As I related earlier, it’s more of a meta matter than the Air modes having anything wrong with their basic premise…TDM is simply favored now (mostly) because of shortsighted, small-minded fighter jocks who wanted to always win by kills rather than giving thought to the strategies involved with winning by playing the objectives.
While I don’t favor the TDM meta as-is, I don’t buy into the ‘in shambles’ billing either…outside the eternal mess that is top tier (always a place of volatile FOTM imbalances).
That’s a non-starter because it betrays a non-negotiable tenet of War Thunder: its pitched as a combined arms game with player versus player CA fighting in one place.
The ‘GFs’ titling of the mode is misnomer which is clarified by the mode description (which explains aircraft also reside in the mode). As half of the mode’s player-controlled vehicles, aircraft have a direct and absolute stake to claims about it…it’s a 50-50 split on paper (mechanically, the mode still favors GFs as I explained posts ago).
To forcibly convert RB GFs into a quasi-Tanks Only would betray RB GFs’ premise and generate a massive outrage, perhaps driving off a substantial portion of the playerbase forever. WT players do not react well to being deprived the rightful usage of their vehicles–as even milder conditions in the Chronicles events showcases.
To forcibly take RB GFs to convert it into a quasi-TO would upend the mode and WT. This idea (sans AI aircraft) has been pitched before and panned…particularly given TO advocates’ common insistence that a TO mode would exist alongside RB GFs as-is. Flip flopping on exactly this has soured many players on the basic concept of TO–which has hurt subsequent pitches by TO advocates.
Rather than helping the TO cause, the idea of converting RB GFs is a quick way to generate steadfast opposition to TO. As an alternative approach, a trigger queue is a far more palatable and practical means to TO.
Eh…considering that many vehicles by 10.X have such things as 20mm anti-aircraft guns (on regular tanks mind you), I don’t really think that’s a good discussion setup for anything more than–at best–generalities.
The faulty presumption that everything should be able to counter everything is…well, faulty. The best example illuminating this is a common one: a clean fighter, despite all of the hype around CAS, still cannot do anything about ‘all’ GFs just because it’s an aircraft. The clean fighter aircraft, like a tank, is still limited by its weaponry (generally MG or CNN).
This is (a part of) why I reject the whole engagement bit…often, it’s simply flat-out wrong. A substantial number of aircraft are aircraft but do not have no practical attack means against common GFs…yet they’re supposed to be hyped too? C’mon…it’s just not so.
Having played open tops and rarely seen such experiences, I simply do not see it as a pressing issue.
I believe the balance measures on hand as-is and teamplay (what WT has of this anyway) adequately handle the matter. (Even so, I’ve been open to further incentives (greater rewards for SPAAs’ air kills) and mechanics that favor protection (Fighters First))
With spawncamping and other cheesy things handled as they are, I don’t suggest you bet money on anything like that changing any time soon…
The perception of what is a ‘rightful’ death and what isn’t is itself subjective.
A lot of people will tell you ___ is cheesy…but if you ask ___ number of people about ___, you’re liable to get ___ number of different answers. A lot is subjective.
On paper, yes…in practice, the 5.7 BR is practically worthless. The vehicle might as well be 6.7 for how often it ends up there…
Many years ago (offhand I’d say 2021 at the latest), I queued up for 50 matches in the 75mm Jumbo to test matchmaking. 49 of the 50 games were uptiers (to 6.0 or higher), an uptier rate of 98%. That is well in excess of even the tamest expectations of MM’s natural flow (an uptier rate of ~75%, due to the 6.0/6.3/6.7 notches for a 5.7 lineup to fall into).
While I understand the implications of uptiers…the Jumbo’s struggle is well beyond the norm. Its a tank centered on armor with a 3.X era gun (1.7 if you want to be strict) facing a tank with superior armor, superior firepower and comparable mobility as a rule.
Under those conditions, the Jumbo is not a heavy tank–it’s a fat light tank. If nothing else, Gaijin could at least redesignate it to reflect that reality–though a BR drop to 5.3 or 5.0 is certainly justifiable as-is.
I was playing GER 3.X-4.X regularly when the 75mm Jumbo was at 4.7 (with a logged average WR of 52% and average exchange rate of 1.5:1); this era was not the apocalypse and I did rather well against them with my Panzer IV G. (My common trick was shooting the Jumbos frontally either via the MG port or preferably via the squishy lower sides (sometimes after shooting out tracks). I had no serious issues facing Jumbos at the time–even when nearly fully uptiered to face them and often while not using purpose-made counters either.
Furthermore, there were actually fewer counters in the 3.X-4.X range for the then-4.7 Jumbo than there are now (even as the Jumbo sits far higher). These counters (Dicker Max, Stuer Emil, Russian ISU tank destroyers) were themselves at significantly higher BRs also (DM at 4.3, SE above that and some ISUs were even up into 6.X).
Opposition to US (and French) Jumbos is now starker in the 4.X range than it was when the Jumbos were at 4.7…it’d be easier for Jumbos to be countered by 4.X foes nowadays.
With that, there’s really no reason to keep the Jumbo at 5.7: there is a plethora of vehicles in place almost explicitly to counter it…they might as well get a purpose set to them, especially to give the Jumbo merit also. (Also: dropping the M4A3E2 from 5.7 would remove any hopes of nuclear means–which are only accessible at 6.7+ matches).
I’m talking about engagements, which are the core of any PvP game. Aircraft will control the engagement against most non-AA ground units.
That being said, flankers in GRB are often faster than average vehicles that have below average armor, so engaging and destroying them isn’t that big of a deal. Meanwhile aircraft can often engage ground units outside of their zone of engagement, practically rendering them useless to fight back.
As I see it right now, most ground units at 4.0 have a really difficult time dealing with 4.0 aircraft. Don’t see why couldn’t the roles be reversed and have, for example, 9.0 aircraft in ARB that have a difficult time dealing with 9.0 AAs.
Only thing that allows this to happen are SP costs, since in GRB aircraft cost much more than ground to spawn in, so increasing SP of AAs in ARB would be a literal copy paste of the “rules” from GRB.
AAB is a multi spawn mode.
I don’t see a reason why ARB wouldn’t be able to be multi spawn mode, just like GRB is currently.
Same.
I already said that 4.0 aircraft have no issues dealing with most 4.0 ground, but the same can’t be said vice versa, so former have a significantly higher SP cost than latter.
This is why I literally copied SP costs from GRB to ARB, but with roles being reversed.
Yes it did, considering it introduced heavily one-sided engagements that are fun for one side only.
Player vs player CA isn’t present in ARB.
Stationary bots are just free reward for less fortunate vehicle types and are far cry from a real CA mode.
As I said, easily solvable by having small maps with Return to the battlefield and Leave the area in: restrictions, just like ground units have in GRB. I’m all for giving everyone the same treatment.
I’m really glad you started talking about meta.
Players don’t create metas, they just discover them by figuring out what vehicles work the best for the game mode in question. If the said mode was perfectly balanced around all vehicle types, there wouldn’t be any meta as everything would be equally as strong.
TO is the best solution to all of this, we can agree on that.
You haven’t understood what I told you, so I’ll repeat.
“A 4.0 ground vehicle is much more vulnerable to a 10.0 ground vehicle than 4.0 aircraft is.”
4.0 tank will most likely have much worse mobility, gun handling, optics, armor, shells and is also quite vulnerable to tank’s main cannon alongside any other auxiliaries 10.0 tank might have. Meanwhile 4.0 aircraft can just linger in angles not coverable by the weaponry of said tank and can dodge incoming fire much easier than any ground vehicle could.
My claim still stands.
Many fighters will have access to bombs/rockets just for that purpose.
They can still easily target open tops or light vehicles. Meanwhile most non-SPAA ground units can’t touch literally any aircraft in the game, regardless of their type.
Again, just because you haven’t experienced it plenty doesn’t mean it isn’t a real problem.
Na-To (and others alike) vs any aircraft is hilariously one-sided and as such, fun for only one side.
You can deal with spawn campers much easier as for the fact you can shoot back at them. This isn’t a thing in an engagement with aircraft.
Something not being able to engage something else is not subjective.
2 Likes
True, unironically kinda want this ngl, would be fun to see
Because it could cause more imbalance, it could lead to steamrolls more, and it just doesn’t need to have multiple spawns. Forcing players to create lineups makes some nations incredibly weak at certain BRs, and others very strong.
RB EC is what ARB needs, especially at higher BRs.
I constantly go back and forth as to whether CAS is problematic in GRB. You can play the game as you see fit. If you like bombing ground, cool; if you like protecting your team from enemy air, cool. My issue with air is with higher ranks. From reserve to about 7.7 air can definitely impact a game, bombing ground, clearing contested areas and the like. However, most air enters an AO where ground vehicles can interact more and protect themselves from incoming threats. Aircraft have to enter an area, usually flying in low or take passes to engage ground, where tanks can engage with MG’s. This allows tanks to try and dodge incoming bombs/rockets or even fire back to try and protect themselves. Starting at 8.0 and up aircraft gain exponentially better CAS capabilities from guided AGMs, targeting reticles/pods for ordinance, GBU’s, laser and TV guided weaponry, and increasingly more common long distance kill capabilities against ground targets. This means they can get further and further away while maintaining the lethality they had when the had to fly in closer at lower battleratings. As the BR’s increase tanks defenses against airbourne attack dont really grow beyond laser warning systems, smoke dispensing systems, and significantly underperforming proximity shells. (IE, the abrams gets MPAT, and while it has 3.5 times the amount of HE filler as a begliets 57mm Proxy shell it does hardly any damage.) AAA becomes increasing less capable of securing capture points as their capabilities for defending against Air targets increases, resulting in far more boring and linear gameplay. This means grinding and spading these vehicles takes longer and it means players, because of frustration, dont take the time to spade them, because the reward of spading them doesn’t match the effort and time-cost it takes to spade them. When i get bombed at say…6.7, yes i may be mad, but i mostly get mad at myself for not hitting the plane more with my .50 cal or timing my movement better to dodge a bomb. At 12.0 i rolly my eyes every time i KO a light tank because i have about 30 seconds to move or hide because im about to be orbital struck from 10km up without any warning of my impending doom. Randomly blowing up from a bomb or missle that didnt make a sound by a plane you can barely make out as a dot on your screen because they are in space makes for exceedingly frustrating gameplay. Air CAS capabilities have exponentially exceeded what tanks are capable of handling and the game hasn’t properly caught the ground up to properly deal with these threats.
Absolutely need people to suggest more SPAA, and other mechanics to deal with the higher end threat.
Patriot missile systems and such could be something to actually consider.
Other targets though for the air threat to go after that aren’t the main field is also another. ‘Hit this radar station out over here’ or ‘Attack the convoy out here to stop reinforcements’.
NATO uses separate radar and launching station for their medium range and long range SAMs - or so have I heard. What Gaijin could add is a self propeled unit with a option to set everything at a location as additional vehicles, just like light vehicles do with recon drones.
This would need a general change on the mission and maps that we have, because a static SPAA is death in the way things works now.
1 Like
Honestly, I have contributed on a thread about shared radar and actually using a group to do things in regards to shared goals to take out targets.
It’d be awesome, but the ‘issue’ that comes forth, even from this thread demonstrating it, is that no-one actually even has faith in thier team, and always consider themselves lone wolves, and don’t expect them to be worth even trying to contact.
And that’s even beside the point of people ‘needing’ voice comms to coordinate with a squad, if anyone even has time to wait for thier mate so they can end up actually queueing together.
A static SPAA is a dumb SPAA. That’s a noob failing (Unless in terms of a vehicle that sctually needs to deploy).
I particularly blame the Cod-ish nature of the mission design on WT with its three lane formula or the damned corridors. To win or to grind there is only one path: get kills. Hardly teamwork comes into consideration for what deserves reward - as rewards for a thing so vital like a SPAA are miserable.
No allies on the air and no allied SPAA is the formula for the CAS hell, and that is the problem, really.
Indeed.
I do find though people do respond when you do put out some positivity in chat and use radio calls effectively.
I take anyone pinging the map to say an enemy is there, or to arty there. I feel others take this as that too.
1 Like
Yeah, but WT still lacks too much on the “teamwork” department.
If you ever played WoT, you would see how different it is: communication is much easier and their playerbase is more competitive in general.
In general the gameplay there is much more tactical because of how narrow the roles are set for the vehicles.
If WT could have a ambient more like this…
You can change that by calling on people to work on it, thing is for many years people have been saying to turn off chat because there is no teamwork there because they didn’t get saved.
That’s the sort of people that need to be held for that occuring.
Tbh
Yeah
Along with anti radiation missles
It would add many more objectives to air
There is a bigger picture to consider when handling balance (such as map conditions another things), otherwise you wouldn’t see such dissimilar vehicles as the M18 and Panther sharing BRs given their different charactersitics.
Eh…I don’t really agree on either count–particularly the vindictiveness of striving for something like imbalance. If the SIAM idea is to be pursued, it has to be fair. This could mean different BRs for things like SPAAs or perhaps something else (further discussion would be needed).
Beyond that, if SIAM was set up to skew things against aircraft in their mode, it’ll be (rightfully) rejected as biased. As open as I am to the basic concept (mine is actually a bit more expansive with entire battles), I cannot endorse actively seeking to disadvantage other vehicles.
Arcade AFs is something I left behind almost a decade ago, with only perhaps a few hundred (probably like a few dozen) matches played in the time since…so I cannot really say much about it nowadays.
Realistic AFs is quite different from other modes (single spawn) and I simply don’t see how/why that’d be changed for SIAM.
I could see SIAM being integrated as its own single spawn system (either taking some of the 16 players or (more likely) running off its own supply), but I don’t see why that’d necessitate multiple spawns.
I’d have to disagree…essentially all of that is a matter of opinion. (For instance: what is the universal definiition of fun? Surely there’ll be some variation… What is “one-sided”? While a lot of things are difficult/improbable in this life, few are impossible…so where does everyone draw the line?)
For instance: an Fw 190A-1–with its 7.92mm MGs and 20mm cannons—strafing a KV-1 will find the engagement one-sided…in favor of the KV-1. The Russian tank doesn’t really have to play it any attention at all–it’s too armored to be threatened by the aircraft’s armament. There is nothing the Fw 190A-1 can do to directly kill that vehicle.
There is a whole swath of similarly situated aircraft (clean fighters without bomb/rocket capability) whose potential is being exaggerated to suggest suitabilities (the ability to attack any GFs) which they don’t have; without counting specifics, I can tell you dozens and dozens of aircraft fall into that category.
I already mentioned and acknowledged that CA as-is in the Air modes is reliant on AI, not players.
As for the exact nature of those AI units, not all are stationary. In fact, it is usual for about half of them to be moving (one side is defending the map, one side is invading)…so I’m not sure why you believe all of these units are stationary.
Terrain, weapon limitations and enemy action all mean those things are not “free” either…
As others have pointed out, the Air modes have larger maps because they need the greater range for the aircraft (which are traveling hundreds to thousands of miles (or km) per hour). Cutting map sizes down for any reason is not something that can be reasonably done and would be a nonstarter. If we were implementing SIAM, it would have to be adapted to the air modes…the air modes wouldn’t be having to adapt to it.
With that said, I have ideas on how that might be done (namely putting SIAMs in charge of area defense where they might be expected without map alterations) such as putting player SPAAs next to a bombing point or city full of AI ground units liable to face attack.
The SIAM concept has attracted ridicule partially because certain facts and realities like map size and engagement distances are unfavorable to the concept. The fact that SPAAs attract a great deal of derision and (relatively) limited interest in RB GFs also signals trouble for the SIAM idea.
While I won’t dismiss it out of hand (due partially because of my own similar (but larger) RB AF + GF CA concept), I’d have to agree that there are certainly areas where the SIAM would struggle to fit in without novel adaptations.
Eh…I’d say that, at the very least, the chemistry of the meta also involves Gaijin too. Players cannot change the mode in such a fundamental manner without help.
TDM has become such a central matter in RB AFs only because Gaijin has, over time, deemphasized the importance of the objectives relating to map conditions (esp. surface forces, bridges, etc.).
Thinking about it, the trigger queue idea might be the best forward for any serious attempt at pitching SIAMs too…
To be direct, I just don’t find the premise compelling. Having gunned down 6.X jets with the 5.0 Type 65 SPAA in 7.X matches (sweeping the kills from radar SPAAs nearby), I find it difficult to ascribe any sort of ‘blame’ to someone who manages to get the drop on a 10.0 vehicle with a 4.0 vehicle (air or otherwise).
If someone in a Bf 109 or whatever can get past an enemy team under such conditions, I think that’s quite admirable. I don’t think there’s any reason to deride it.
To your point more directly, I believe you’re complaining about the aircraft’s weaponry (bomb) more than the aircraft itself…but the bombs are pretty much the same for anything–hence my above thoughts.
A clean fighter would be a vehicle without such capabilities.
A fighter capable of mounting bombs/rockets could also be called clean when unloaded…but I was referring to only the strictest definition there.
“Easily” depends on how the foes make it for one another, but you are correct that open top/light vehicles can be vulnerable to enemy fire.
I don’t really think much can be said about that other than it’s a matter of vehicle merit. If one tried to override their vulnerabilities, it’d amount to an artificial buff.
As of yet, I cannot substantiate the matter as being a notable issue…I just haven’t seen it.
If people are that afraid of damage from air attacks (or artillery), I’d advise them to try another vehicle…that’s about all I really can say. Vulnerability to fire is a tradeoff in an OT.
I’d have to disagree, both because:
- Spawncampers can be (and often are) crafty or exploitative (or both)
- Spawn protection gives GFs (particularly SPAAs) effectively “free shots” at the air units with no fear of reprisal (whereas aircraft do not get spawn protection like this)
IDK man…after my goofing around with the Waffentrager and Tiger as well as seeing what @JuicyKuuuuki has done, I’d be hesitant to put things off the table.
There are a lot of things that can be rightfully called ‘improbable but possible’ that cast doubt upon what can/cannot be engaged. It’s certainly not so black and white as "tank, therefore cannot target aircraft’…
Noone shuts up about the pantsir becose its the only aa that can do it
Why should russia be the only nation that can thouch anything in the air over 12km?
What’s the equivalent of the pantsir in all the other trees, or possible crosses?
And how is this diffrent from someone skilled doing it but with a tank?
Goddamn they sucked! why don’t they just dodge the bombs bro?
5 Likes
Look at this bad player bro, he just didn’t dodge it and changed like transformers into plane/spaa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCgQ3Zu79Jk
4 Likes