Air to ground is completely different story due to air natural advantage over any ground unit.
Yes, air forces have an advantage over ground units… but here in the game it is even more emphasized by the 3rd person view…
That’s the reason why I don’t play ground units mode…
That overview of the situation is brutal…
I don’t think it’s possible yet,
but in ground units I would remove the 3rd person view through software and suddenly the planes wouldn’t have such dominance (only the view of the pilot, bombardier and the rear hemisphere for the bomber gunners) and I think that the dominance of the planes would suddenly change…
But this should have come at the time when the game started, so that the players would get used to it right from the start…
The players would immediately have to learn to fly differently over the terrain and the forces, ground vs. air component of the game, would be equal…
If you mean putting AI aircraft into RB GFs as additions to the mode, we had that before (years ago, they had “scouts” for each side that would loiter around). I could see that returning with their function tied into the GFs’ scouting function as the coordinator (with destroying it reducing effectiveness of GFs’ scouting).
However, adding AI air units could only supplement players’ controlled aircraft–AI bots certainly cannot replace player aircraft.
To deny players access to their own player controlled aircraft in RB GFs would generate an uproar and incite scores of people deprived of their vehicles. WT players would never stand for the loss of PvP CA…it’s why they’re here and the central CA mode is the venue for it.
Eh, that’s not really true nor are artificial buffs to facilitate outcomes a good idea.
Aircraft are not certainly not the top dogs in RB GFs (below 9.X–I will not bother commenting on the FOTM mess of “balance” in the top tier quarter of the game) and we see this proven whenever we see teams with “too many” aircraft up that lose quickly thereafter…AFs just don’t have the clout that GFs do in RB GFs.
Spoiler
Between kill rates, objective influence and SP costs (including cost-effectiveness), aircraft simply do not fare as well as GFs in RB GFs’ meta–aircraft cost substantially more (usually at least 3 times as much) but do not reliably yoeld anywhere near as many kills as GFs nor have the means that GFs do to directly influence the direction of a match (capture ability on the points).
Mechanics such as what tanks have for repairs and crew exchange also give tanks a leg up, as aircraft lack these even at the airfield (where aircraft can be denied repairs over ‘too much’ damage). By contrast, as you know, tanks’ repair mechanic can allow them restoration anywhere from any wounds that are not outright fatal.
To just run even with GFs (nevermind have the advantage), aircraft would have to have substantially higher cost-effectiveness (more influence, not less). Rather than making aircraft deadlier (with stronger weapons), the best avenue to achieve such parity would be reducing their costs to equalize the CE rates.
With repairs as they are and the new ammo box mechanic (which has given GFs more staying power), the mechanics have shifted further in favor of GFs. Both of these mechanics come off as a bit silly for GFs when deep in the enemy side of the map, but I see it it as tolerable “liberty” on realism. I don’t endorse giving aircraft similar measures, but I do say that the advantages these things give to GFs must be considered in balance discussions like this.
As the AI airfield AAA situation proved years ago, artificially buffing matters (especially but not exclusively AI) is a bad idea with balance implications. That situation was deeply damaging and led to a noticeable atrophy of skill in the Air modes (people came to relying on their airfield’s AI to win–rather than themselves and their skill). Collective player skill in the Air modes has never fully recovered from the mistake of AI AAA.
Based on that negative history of similar mechanics, as well as the doubts about player interest in SPAAs in AFs modes, I don’t see any future in the idea.
If you’re having to rig the mode to favor the SPAAs to make it work, does it really sound like a good idea?
Eh…it’s less about that as just the practicalities of the matter. I’ve wiped out aircraft with such things as the KV-2 and other watermelon launchers…but it’s just not a good devotion of time.
The opportunity costs involved mean it’s better to focus on other GFs and to leave anti-air fighting to better optimized vehicles (SPAAs/fighters especially).
Still, as I mentioned before, I’ll take shots at aircraft if I think I might hit them (that’s how I wiped out a Blenheim with the KV-2 and a Pe-8 at 3km with a Tiger I).
To be direct, I disagree. Given how the mode is setup, how you’d expect it to be (roughly 50-500) and what actually is, I see this rate as far lower than what you’d figure it as.
Calling 16v16 fights duels is also a bit of a stretch, particularly as revenge bombing isn’t a given (usually you have to really irk someone to get a direct retaliation)–other than that, it comes off as just more fighting to me.
Wading through the fights is what matters, nof what’s doing the fighting.
As I see it, all vehicle strengths and weaknesses are included in the cost of using __ (that vehicle).
Whether it measures up sufficiently to justify its use to you is your decision.
Track? Perhaps. Barrel? Probably not–Gaijin has destroyed barrel damage in the lsst few months.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the scenario to have to test it when faced with such potent, strong adversaries as Tiger IIs or other German headliners. (Of course, that is why I’ve all but abandoned the 75mm Jumbo–it’s garbage nowadays.)
As commentary, I haven’t had too much trouble with aircraft in my Lorraine 155mm (4.3) orZSU-57-2 (7.0) despite their OT status…so I cannot really substantiate the vulnerability claim.
Based upon the new split BR system, I could see such a thing existing for a new mode (a la TO). However, it would increase the upkeep of the (sub)mode and we don’t even have that yet.
The trigger queue idea seems like the best direct means to TO.
We don’t need artificial buffs to make it happen, some AA vehicles are already set to be dominant force against air, they just need a bit of BR tweaking. As for something better, there’s plenty of things out there in real life that outranges our current best AAs by a substantial margin.
Yes they are from an engagement standpoint. They can engage everything, all the while not everything can engage them.
True combined arms game would strive to have just that in all of their modes. Plenty of people playing Air modes are mostly/exclusively playing aircraft, so no wonder they’d oppose the combined aspect where ground vehicles would have an upper hand.
You still didn’t address the glaring problem in certain vehicles being totally helpless from the start when they encounter aircraft.
It’s pretty clear what a duel is.
You can theoretically have 16 duels in a 16v16 game mode.
You still ignore the fact vehicles like that are basically free kills for air and the whole engagement is heavily one sided.
PvP game having such “free” engagements is weird to be honest.
Barrels that have muzzles at the end aren’t that hard to destroy. I’ve tested APHE and APCR and both works. Jumbo also has a stabilizer which improves your aim and reaction times greatly, so sniping barrels of II H’s is pretty possible.
Also, APCR can penetrate the sides of the Tiger so killing it with Jumbo is pretty realistic I’d say. Even APHE can penetrate through some spots.
ZSU is an SPAA that has great gun handling, gun elevation and RoF is decent as well.
Lorraine 155mm has 20mm autocannon with decent gun elevation and great RoF.
Meanwhile, my two examples of Na-To and Pvrvbv 551 have non of that.
That certain AA vehicles (mostly in the dumpster fire of imbalance that is top tier) are “dominant” is indicative of a problem–that does not constitute a solution for them as-is nor would they be in the Air modes.
As I’ve said, I see the biggest problem to the ‘SPAAs in Air modes’ idea as being mechanical (range especially) and player interest (which appears tepid at best). The idea of player controlled GFs in RB AFs is something I’m actually quite warm to (hence my previously mention idea), but in the game as-is and how it can be expected to be…I don’t see it happening.
The AFs modes are CA as-is (with bots) but their focus and gearing is mostly toward TDM these days. I believe that’s a mistake and remember nicely the days where objectives were king (which did include important roles for GFs), but those days are behind us.
If you were to push for a return to those times, that may give the SPAA in Air modes idea something to pitch itself along with…but then you’d still have to convince Gaijin and the relevant characters for that. (Plus there’d be the ‘warm up’ time of waiting for the aircraft to get to the engagement, if ever they did.)
While you may be of that opinion, I disagree based on the overall scope. The aerial flank is indeed another flank–but I don’t think it bears an overpowering importance in the manner you suggest, particularly given the sway of caps.
“Melee” sounds more like it…but again, it’s all about opinion and perception. I don’t think many people will accuse WT battles of being sharply coordinated and heavily organized.
I have never really felt that way even when a tanker who flies gets me. Usually I just take it as an a cue and opportunity to turn him into RP for the aircraft/modules I’m researching.
To me, seeing oneself as a victim in the way of “free kills” from the outset breeds defeatism. Entering the match that way is no way to aim for success.
Eh…was the testing done in live battles or via the damage viewer/test drive? Between different conditions and live matters (including a player making countermoves and other things (ex. bushes), I don’t think it’s too easy.
Regarding APCR, I suppose it’s possible (practical is a different matter)–but I don’t really care to try it out. My 75mm Jumbo is spaded and was well worn when it was decent as a midtier US vehicle. Considering current conditions, it just doesn’t appeal to me anymore and there are superior vehicles with similar BRs (M4A3, M4/T26, etc.) that I’d probably prefer.
Nowadays, I think I’d prefer taking the M36 and M42 (which, when it was 6.7, I killed Tiger IIs with via the turret ring) to go into 6.X uptiers with. They seem more promising, but others are free to take on Tiger IIs with the 75mm Jumbo if they dare.
The ZSU-57-2 is labeled as an SPAA…but, in practice, it’s basically just used as a tank destroyer. (Gaijin even altered its SP costs in the past because of this. It has good characteristics–but it is seldom used as an SPAA…certainly not so much as you might believe. The Lorraine 155mm’s 20mm is indeed a good stinger too and its characteristics are nice.
The purpose of bringing those two open tops up (along with previous comments about the Dicker Max, Sturer Emil and others) is to discuss my own experiences with open tops…I simply haven’t had the sort of trouble with them that you suggest is the norm.
I’ve played the Na-To myself quite heavily and while it doesn’t have an MG nor a roof, I’ve gotten along alright anyway…so, yeah. (For 3.3, that gun makes the package very much worth it.)
On that Swedish rocket launcher…haven’t tried it yet, will have to revisit it.
lmao
Spoiler
I haven’t said the Jumbo is a bad vehicle for its own characteristics, I said the Jumbo suffers from horrid overtiering (which is obvious).
Spoiler
At 5.7, the Jumbo is regularly subjected to 6.7 uptiers where it faces vehicles like the Tiger II which completely negate its purpose (frontal armor) and out gun it too (a Jumbo cannot seriously handle a Tiger II frontally). In a Jumbo 75 versus Tiger II situation, the Tiger II dictates the engagement. As being a “heavy tank” goes, the J75 is laughable…it just isn’t one given its current BR.
Without even bringing HEAT-FS into the equation, the Jumbo is not really the sort of vehicle you want headlining in a 5.7-6.7 lineup…it just doesn’t have any outstanding characteristics about it (armor, firepower, mobility, etc.).
Even at 5.7, the armor on the Jumbo is quite pedestrian and can be penetrated by a long list of vehicles (many of which originate at 4.X–underneath its natural range).
To remind you: not everyone uses a wall of bushes nor ULQ settings that manipulate greenery and the like to play. Those change battle conditions for the users, as there is variation which jaundices the experience.
What experience you might recall with the Jumbo (perhaps dated too) is quite different from its usual experience…it just isn’t what the hype pretends and a look at its characteristics and what 6.7 brings shows that.
Jumbo has pretty bad ammo but it seems like a pretty decent vehicle at 5.7.
Full uptiers can be problematic because of armor losing efficiency, but this is the problem with most heavies.
I wasn’t talking about current GRB, as most high tier AAs aren’t really that much of a threat to decent CAS. I’ve only made a statement that some of those can easily become dominant in ARB by simple BR changes.
Those bots aren’t really a threat and just serve as free RP/SL for a certain type of aircraft that suffer in ARB, strike/bomber ones. Having flying bots that serve as pinatas for AAs would be a good way to keep combined arms element in Ground battles.
ARB is already a cesspool so at least trying to make changes wouldn’t hurt.
Considering our modes haven’t changed that much in a decade, I think Gaijin is much more concerned about spamming new top tier vehicles instead of fixing terrible, decade old modes.
Ground units control caps, but my claim was that air units are top dogs when it comes to engaging other units, which is true. Aircraft can kill ground units of a much higher BR while being almost untouchable, which is something that’s only true for air.
Yeah, just because you’re playing with 15 people, doesn’t mean you can help all of them in an instant.
Everyone can have their personal opinions and feelings, but that doesn’t change the objective truth.
But you are a victim in there. Your chances of fighting back or surviving are pretty slim, no matter what you do. Yes, you can try and spawn AA/CAP, but the unrightful killing has already been done.
That’s like a blood feud in some areas of the world.
I’ve shot their barrels off quite recently in a live battle, with same results being observed in a test drive. Good thing WW2 heavies aren’t really famous for having great gun handling, so hitting such a big muzzle of a moving barrel shouldn’t be that hard.
It can go through both it’s turret and hull side on, so Jumbo can relatively easily clap unaware Tiger II.
No one said it’d be a walk in the park, but I think it’s far more doable than hitting an aircraft with your main cannon.
I do understand ZSU is a better TD than AA, but it’s still far more capable of countering air than most other, non-AA ground units.
Lorraine’s 20mm autocannon is probably the best thing non-AAs get as a defense, outside of HE-VT rounds of course.
Unfortunately Na-To and many others don’t have those luxuries.
I’ve recently started grinding out Japan, so my Na-To experience is pretty fresh. It’s a decent vehicle when it comes to killing ground units, but in some occasions you’ll kill the “wrong” guy which will come back in an aircraft, beelining to your general area and just strafe you to death. Free kill + revenge is an awesome combo.
Most heavies will suffer in full uptiers due to their armor being way less effective, this isn’t a Jumbo-only problem.
Player operated SPAAs in the Air modes (as in GFs) would need to have proper BRs for their capability. Gaijin could not give them artificially low BRs simply to facilitate the idea…that’d be biased. Players would be outraged and rightfully so.
Generally speaking, strikers/bombers are a rare breed in Air modes period (due to the emphasis on TDM rather than objectives (such as attacking/protecting (AI) GFs).
While it’d be refreshing to see a return to the old times where objectives matter, I doubt that it’d work out to realization that way. (Your pitch is similar to my own–albeit not as ambitious with, I presume, only the SPAAs being controlled by players).
When the AI scouts were in RB GFs many years ago, they were there in that sort of capacity. However, my recollection is that they were near or outside the limits of operation for SPAAs…they were rarely if ever reachable by SPAAs.
I have no problem with some new AI aircraft coming along to spice things up and give SPAAs something to do beyond just player-controlled enemy aircraft…but I’m not sure how players (especially the TO crowd) might receive it.
Eh…it depends really. I mean someone running around in a demon like the M22 or M18 in an uptier has to operate such that they don’t get hit.
The matter of capability versus higher BR vehicles is less about the used vehicles as its weaponry (a la bombs). Still, the principle with tanks is similar–the Na-To handles itself in uptiers alongside the Chi-To well enough because it keeps it gun while its vulnerability hasn’t really changed.
I understand what you’re saying…but I also understand that playing the light vehicles/flankers is pretty similar.
That’s why I think calling it is a melee is more fitting than a duel. It’s hardly clean face-offs all the time.
Death is death…that’s about as central as it gets on that.
Eh…“unrightful killing” seems a tad formal in a combat game. Beyond that, I’ve encouraged the idea of freely accessible despawn points to change vehicles at no cost and even SP rebates too.
That can happen–but I rarely see it firsthand myself. I don’t see it as a huge issue personally, particularly given that nothing is liable to change about it any time soon.
While you are correct, the Jumbo suffers a particularly heavy burden there because of its predisposition to uptiers. If it was at even 5.3, matters would probably be quite different (I don’t think 6.3 has the same “gravity” as 6.7).
Of course full uptiers might be problematic but the vehicle still works just fine if You know what You are doing. Stabilization still gives You an advantage in certain situations.
While appreciate the humor of this hype for the 75mm Jumbo, you are greatly exaggerating its capabilities. Against something like a Tiger II (a typical foe of 6.7), the J75 is essentially helpless…the Tiger II controls the engagement regardless of any backup that assists him.
All the Tiger II has to do to kill the Jumbo is aim at the Jumbo and fire…that’s it. On the other hand, the Jumbo has to go through an elaborate scheme to achieve similar results…hardly a level field.
As I’ve played the vehicle far more often–under more representative conditions too–I feel I must inform you of your stumble. If you’d like me to tutor you further on the Jumbo, please respond via PM (this is beyond the topic here).
Spoiler
Perhaps the “unique” conditions you use the vehicle with (high time player, squad, extensive bushes and/or WT for Nintendo 64) which jaundice the experience. Those different conditions render your experience as fundamentally different from the norm…unrepresentative.
The Jumbo 75mm is an unremarkable 5.7 and is even poorer for its awful suitability for the very common 6.7 uptiers it gets dragged into. Dropping the M4A3E2 down to 5.3 or even 5.0 could be done with little negative effects to its peers (counters are plentiful) but great positive changes for it (it might actually see matches that aren’t 6.7!).
While appreciate your humorous hyping of the Jumbo, I must point out your beliefs exaggerate its capability widely. If you had more experience with the vehicle, I’m sure you’d agree with me in time (especially when use is done without those special conditions).
As for stabilizers…they’re great to have, but the stabilizer cannot overcome the inherent limitations of the gun (most notably penetration) and offers little to players firing from static positions or moving up incrementally. In many cases, it’d be better to have the bigger unstabilized guns boasted by their foes (like Panthers and Tigers I/II).
Not really.
Copying the GRB style where the “other” military branch is stronger engagement-wise would imply that Ground units should be stronger in that regard in ARB. Adjusting their BR and SP to do just that is simple and easy.
Also, BRs in this game are given to vehicles with their actual performance in said mode in mind, so no other rules have to be met (like date of introduction, etc.). This is why you have some pretty modern vehicles roaming around in WW2 lobbies.
Of course people might be outraged when seeing how other branch is controlling the engagements in their mode but GRB suffered from this for years, so no reason why ARB people should be left out of the amazing CA concept Gaijin had come up with.
Equality for everyone.
This really depends on what BR you play though. Seeing how badly people think of strikers/bombers literally means Air modes are in shambles and need immediate attention to solve the issues.
No, just copy how it is in ARB, remove player-controlled combined element and introduce bots that are nothing more than free RP/SL for some less fortunate vehicle types.
Don’t get me wrong, weaponry is important but many other things are when it comes to ground vs ground combat. Things like mobility, gun handling, reload speed, armor might all change quite rapidly, so a 4.0 ground vehicle is much more vulnerable to a 10.0 ground vehicle than 4.0 aircraft is.
Not all the time, but duels will surely happen at a regular basis.
Maybe in real life, but let’s not forget this is a game and engagements should be made that they can go both ways relatively easily by using some skill.
Na-To vs aircraft is an engagement that’s highly unfair and the victor is pretty easily guessed.
I disagree, games should be much more balanced in that aspect than real life.
As I said, personal opinions and feelings don’t have to be in line with objective truth, which is fine. We’ll all have different experiences in the game.
Jumbo is a whole BR lower than Tiger II, so seeing it struggle in that engagement is to be expected.
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.
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.
