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.
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.
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:
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?
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
That is one horrible ass ground player bro, is he blind? I mean why didn’t he saw you and aim his barrel at 90 degree and shoot you down?
That would probably be addad at the same time for both spaa and planes
Again
What is the actual diffrence between that and someone getting 20kills in a tank?
All you are showing is that you know how to play the game well
It does not prove anything else
If I jumped into a Pe-8/Lancaster and going after your tank, there is nothing you can do about it, your tiger 1 will have a better chance vs 3 cheaters in an enemy tank than any legit players in their bomber.
Not gonna work
Custom lobbys just dont have a good way for searching
Nor do they give sl and rp
Do it and this would just stop with in less then a year
Look at how many custom lobbys are currently open
They can counter each other pretty easily and consistently.
Aircraft would still be in control of the objectives and would cost way less than AAs to spawn. That makes it balanced if GRB is a basis for comparison, as same applies there but vice versa.
Don’t see how it couldn’t be achieved as nothing really stops it from happening.
I don’t think getting killed by something you couldn’t counter from the start is fun for the masses in a PvP game.
That’s a no-contest as both sides can easily ignore each other without much care.
I can also tell you even more aircraft that can kill ground units pretty easily, regardless of their BR.
They won’t fall out of the sky if they aren’t flying at their top speed. If ground vehicles that can go 100+ km/h are locked up in 1x1km areas, I don’t see a reason why aircraft wouldn’t be subjected to the same thing. Equality for all.
Not really.
Reworked game mode should cater to all vehicle types present.
It’s clear that fighters are meta in ARB since that’s how the mode has been set up. This implies said game mode isn’t balanced properly as you’ll have stronger and weaker types of aircraft.
Your claim that ARB is fine and that it’s just “players fault” is pretty wrong, which we both agreed on now.
Flying and dropping 250/500kg bomb onto something isn’t that hard.
It’s not important if it’s a bomb, missile or whatever. It’s being dropped by something you really can’t engage properly and in plenty of cases, at all.
Indeed, but they can fight back against ground units while they can’t against aircraft. That’s a big difference.
If he can shoot at you, you can shoot at him. There isn’t any invisibility cloak in the game. You’re also at advantage of having spawn protection.
Aircraft that fly above your vertical elevation range are literally not engageable, even if you have line of sight.